Problems With Sunday School Lessons

[tomato1236]

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.

I agree. Lessons often are dry and uninteresting. I think that's more the fault of the teacher than the lesson manual. I think the lesson manual is there to get your juices flowing, not to be used as a strict outline. My elders quorum teacher yesterday read his lesson off a piece of paper and I thought about raising my hand and saying, "is this going to be the whole lesson? From that paper? Please let me know so I know whether to leave or not."

 

[tomato1236]

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.

It can be useful to use non-scriptural sources to support your ideas. The manual says to be "judicious" in selecting these sources. That means to me that it's ok to use them at times. I do not think it's appropriate to teach more non-scripture than scripture in a lesson. If the emphasis is on the 6 other books, and all the excellent things they have to say, that doesn't feel right.

 

[Orontes]

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.

My impression is based off of how the issue was presented. In the initial post two problems are put forward. Problem one is the teacher recommending 5 or 6 books (that were physically brought by the teacher) and reading off their titles. Problem two is the teacher doing a verse by verse analysis including references to the Septuagint and KJV and then concluding this analysis was “proof” Smith couldn’t have “made it all up”. Independent of the value of the teacher’s conclusions, I don’t see either proposed problems, as problems. They both seem mundane. Even assuming the teacher’s conclusions were rubbish, it nonetheless strikes me as a fellow into his subject and offering extra avenues for people to study more for themselves.

In further posts Tomato seemed to stress 1) the teacher’s use of the word “proof”, 2) disparaging comments about the wisdom of men and 3) series of appeals to authority. Per 1) this seems far too sensitive about verbiage from a person not likely an academic and certainly not presenting a formal paper. Per 2) is problematic insofar as people are given any space to talk (as in allowing class discussion) given any discussion and conclusion(s) is necessarily going to include the dubbed wisdom of men. Per 3) the many quotes are presented as stand-alone statements. None of the quotes is concerned with Sunday School lessons, referencing study material or scripture analysis in Sunday School. Their focus is elsewhere: revelation, gaining a testimony and faith etc. They do not relate to the subject.

Because of the above, my impression is the negative reaction is/was a simple anti-intellectualism* or something more petty like a reaction to verbiage: both point to the complainer rather than the object of complaint.

*This could be a real anti-intellectualism or pretense for a self piety: one who sees something they disagree with as contra the faith rather than a simple difference in style.

 

[tomato1236]

My impression is based off of how the issue was presented. In the initial post two problems are put forward. Problem one is the teacher recommending 5 or 6 books (that were physically brought by the teacher) and reading off their titles. Problem two is the teacher doing a verse by verse analysis including references to the Septuagint and KJV and then concluding this analysis was “proof” Smith couldn’t have “made it all up”. Independent of the value of the teacher’s conclusions, I don’t see either proposed problems, as problems. They both seem mundane. Even assuming the teacher’s conclusions were rubbish, it nonetheless strikes me as a fellow into his subject and offering extra avenues for people to study more for themselves.

In further posts Tomato seemed to stress 1) the teacher’s use of the word “proof”, 2) disparaging comments about the wisdom of men and 3) series of appeals to authority. Per 1) this seems far too sensitive about verbiage from a person not likely an academic and certainly not presenting a formal paper. Per 2) is problematic insofar as people are given any space to talk (as in allowing class discussion) given any discussion and conclusion(s) is necessarily going to include the dubbed wisdom of men. Per 3) the many quotes are presented as stand-alone statements. None of the quotes is concerned with Sunday School lessons, referencing study material or scripture analysis in Sunday School. Their focus is elsewhere: revelation, gaining a testimony and faith etc. They do not relate to the subject.

Because of the above, my impression is the negative reaction is/was a simple anti-intellectualism* or something more petty like a reaction to verbiage: both point to the complainer rather than the object of complaint.

*This could be a real anti-intellectualism or pretense for a self piety: one who sees something they disagree with as contra the faith rather than a simple difference in style.

Wow. After reading this, if you and your analysis represent the school of intellectualism, and if you're an "academic" you're right. I don't care to be intellectual or an academic. Or to be in the company of one. It's ugly. Why do you "intellectuals" always seem to sidestep the actual point being made to critique the correctness of debate technique. Nobody cares. Are we trying to score points and impress the judge? No! Is there some really nerdy girl you're trying to impress? No! I'm making a point based on my feelings, and the doctrine taught in OUR church, and you're claiming my expressions are invalid based on the inferiority of my statements to your higher rules of engagement. Well I'll come back in 30 years when I've caught up to your incredible level of enlightenment and genius.

Or when you're willing to drop the bull.

 

[tomato1236]

I just imagined you teaching Sunday School.

 

[Orontes]

Wow. After reading this, if you and your analysis represent the school of intellectualism, and if you're an "academic" you're right. I don't care to be intellectual or an academic. Or to be in the company of one. It's ugly. Why do you "intellectuals" always seem to sidestep the actual point being made to critique the correctness of debate technique. Nobody cares. Are we trying to score points and impress the judge? No! Is there some really nerdy girl you're trying to impress? No! I'm making a point based on my feelings, and the doctrine taught in OUR church, and you're claiming my expressions are invalid based on the inferiority of my statements to your higher rules of engagement. Well I'll come back in 30 years when I've caught up to your incredible level of enlightenment and genius.

Or when you're willing to drop the bull.

I just imagined you teaching Sunday School.

I have no vested interest. I do not teach Sunday School. I do not know the lesson taught or the conclusions made.* I have been simply responding to the presented dubbed problems. The hostility of your post seems to indicate I hit near the mark. It does appear there is an anti-intellectualism covering as a self-piety. Both ideas are confused. The reality is the Spirit and the mind are not mutually exclusive domains. The one can and does enhance the other. It is also the case that feeling the Spirit is person specific. One person may be wrapped in the Spirit from a lesson, talk etc. while another feels nothing. Understanding this is to understand there is a pro-active element to feeling the Spirit: the subject has a base responsibility. If one doesn't feel the spirit or notes they are having negative reactions to a Church lesson/teacher, best to look inward first, rather than casting blame on those presenting material.

In this thread there are two weeks of negative reaction to your parent's ward teacher. There is also an added negative reaction to the Elder's Quorum teacher (for reading his lesson off of a piece of paper he had prepared). This reading his lesson from prepared work was enough, you thought about challenging him on it and possibly leaving the class. This all indicates the issue is with you, not these teachers. The vast bulk of those in teaching assignments are not professionals or academics. They are simply people given a calling and trying to be about it the best they know. Some are comfortable teaching and/or being in front of people. Others are not. Futher, some teachers will be effected by issues outside the lesson (marital problems, work etc.). Some will be over zealous because a given subject is a personal interest of theirs. Regardless, those called to a teaching assignment independant of skill, method or conclusions drawn can offer something of worth to their class, should the listener be in the right frame of mind and let the Spirit guide. I think you need to look inward rather casting fault elsewhere.

* Except for some for a general reference about the treacher concluding something about a Septuigent and KJV verse comparison and Smith therefore couldn't have "made it up".

 

[tomato1236]

I have no vested interest. I do not teach Sunday School. I do not know the lesson taught or the conclusions made.* I have been simply responding to the presented dubbed problems. The hostility of your post seems to indicate I hit near the mark. It does appear there is an anti-intellectualism covering as a self-piety. Both ideas are confused. The reality is the Spirit and the mind are not mutually exclusive domains. The one can and does enhance the other. It is also the case that feeling the Spirit is person specific. One person may be wrapped in the Spirit from a lesson, talk etc. while another feels nothing. Understanding this is to understand there is a pro-active element to feeling the Spirit: the subject has a base responsibility. If one doesn't feel the spirit or notes they are having negative reactions to a Church lesson/teacher, best to look inward first, rather than casting blame on those presenting material.

In this thread there are two weeks of negative reaction to your parent's ward teacher. There is also an added negative reaction to the Elder's Quorum teacher (for reading his lesson off of a piece of paper he had prepared). This reading his lesson from prepared work was enough, you thought about challenging him on it and possibly leaving the class. This all indicates the issue is with you, not these teachers. The vast bulk of those in teaching assignments are not professionals or academics. They are simply people given a calling and trying to be about it the best they know. Some are comfortable teaching and/or being in front of people. Others are not. Futher, some teachers will be effected by issues outside the lesson (marital problems, work etc.). Some will be over zealous because a given subject is a personal interest of theirs. Regardless, those called to a teaching assignment independant of skill, method or conclusions drawn can offer something of worth to their class, should the listener be in the right frame of mind and let the Spirit guide. I think you need to look inward rather casting fault elsewhere.

* Except for some for a general reference about the treacher concluding something about a Septuigent and KJV verse comparison and Smith therefore couldn't have "made it up".

This is much better. Thanks.