Yesterday my question in Gospel Doc almost exploded my Stake Prez's head off

[byu71]

Gospel Doctrine. I admire those of you who teach it. My last teaching assignment was Elders Quorum way. way, back. Elders enjoyed having discussions and no one in the class had reached the position level in the church that whatever they said was to be taken as gospel. When they reach that level, they are made high priests.

Gospel Doctrine you have a lot of people who are sure of their own interpretations of the gospel, for example your SP.

Adam and Eve aren't the only example of good things happening from a sinful act. Maybe though when that happens Satan wasn't enticing anyone to do the sin, they just did it on their own. Except I thought I heard all acts either are of God or of the Devil. I know so little. I could never teach Gospel Doctrine.

[LA Ute]

LA, JL and creek: How do you define meat?

I will cop out (somewhat) by saying I leave that up to Correlation. Sounds weak, I know, but in the end that's pretty much what I do. I always add my own thoughts, favorite GA quotes, bits from books (I have quoted from Rough Stone Rolling in front of my SP and he loved it), but only to reinforce what the lesson is clearly trying to teach.

How much meat do you think there already is in the GD manual? How much of the milk distinguishes us from other faiths?

I don't think it's very hard at all to distinguish us by our core doctrines, so I guess I don't understand your question. By the time we get to the 5th Article of Faith we have exploded any similarity with almost all other faiths. (Heck, the first one does that all by itself.)

I have been doing nothing but teaching from manuals for many years (obviously not as many as some) and my impression is that they are loaded with meat and that not a small amount of it is misleading. I guess that is my issue, if you are going to address certain things at all, address them honestly. Otherwise you create the conditions that lead to people getting hurt or offended. Perhaps the new manual does away with meat, I'll have to get a few more of them under my belt to evaluate that.

Now you have identified a challenge. I can't think of a time when I have found something misleading (but I have only been a substitute teacher, apart from some long-ago assignments as EQ instructor that lasted a cumulative 3 years or so). If I did find something like that I would just not include it in the lesson and would steer discussion away from it. I seem to recall reading that you do that too.

[UtahDan]

I will cop out (somewhat) by saying I leave that up to Correlation. Sounds weak, I know, but in the end that's pretty much what I do. I always add my own thoughts, favorite GA quotes, bits from books (I have quoted from Rough Stone Rolling in front of my SP and he loved it), but only to reinforce what the lesson is clearly trying to teach.

I don't think it's very hard at all to distinguish us by our core doctrines, so I guess I don't understand your question. By the time we get to the 5th Article of Faith we have exploded any similarity with almost all other faiths. (Heck, the first one does that all by itself.)

Not trying to corner you here, but there seemed to be a lot of agreement that milk is better than meat in a GD setting and little definition. You seem to be saying on the one hand that correlation is making that decision and whatever is appropriately milk is what is in the manual. But as you say, even in the very basics we are remarkably different from other churches. I don't know how you talk about those things without getting into the meat, so to speak.

Joseph Smith at the tender age of 17 was given the gold plates and the urim and thummim by and angel and thereby, through the power of God, translated the BOM. Cool, tell me more about this urim and thummim! Err..., lets stick with the milk. There one hundred other examples. So I guess my point is, we ARE already talking about meaty topics, so to speak. Option one is to arm the teacher with some sort of answer, even if it is "I don't know." Option two is to let the teacher speculate or let members of the class speculate which the teacher desperately tries to steer the discussion somewhere else. Because people want to talk about these issues, we all know it. It is going to happen, the question is how will it be handled, IMO. What I am saying is that I think the milk/meat distinction is tough to get your arms around where the rubber meats (tee hee) the road. I'm not sure it practically exists.

Now you have identified a challenge. I can't think of a time when I have found something misleading (but I have only been a substitute teacher, apart from some long-ago assignments as EQ instructor that lasted a cumulative 3 years or so). If I did find something like that I would just not include it in the lesson and would steer discussion away from it. I seem to recall reading that you do that too.

I don't want to overstate this because it is primarily through omission. Nor do I really want to build that case for lots of reasons. You are right though, I do skip some things.

[Goatnapper'96]

The only 'satan' we need to worry about is the pride that exists in our own hearts. It's all in there. Everything else is just an allegory to get us to think about things.

In England there was a faith called the "Christadelphians." IIRC, they did not believe in a being called Satan. They felt that Satan was the natural man inside us all. I believe in Satan, but I sure appreciated their perspective and have long felt that it graps an excellent level of individual accountability.

But I also think boobs are in.

[Fiyero]

But I also think boobs are in.

Actually, they're on the decline. Damn recession.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-10/the-great-boob-bust

[LA Ute]

Not trying to corner you here, but there seemed to be a lot of agreement that milk is better than meat in a GD setting and little definition. You seem to be saying on the one hand that correlation is making that decision and whatever is appropriately milk is what is in the manual. But as you say, even in the very basics we are remarkably different from other churches. I don't know how you talk about those things without getting into the meat, so to speak.

I am not thinking so much about "meat," a term Paul uses to describe true doctrines that are built on simpler foundational doctrines, as I am about controversial topics, hobby topics, speculation, and the like. I don't think those belong in GD class. Maybe not in any church-sponsored class. Make sense?

Joseph Smith at the tender age of 17 was given the gold plates and the urim and thummim by and angel and thereby, through the power of God, translated the BOM. Cool, tell me more about this urim and thummim! Err..., lets stick with the milk. There one hundred other examples. So I guess my point is, we ARE already talking about meaty topics, so to speak. Option one is to arm the teacher with some sort of answer, even if it is "I don't know." Option two is to let the teacher speculate or let members of the class speculate which the teacher desperately tries to steer the discussion somewhere else. Because people want to talk about these issues, we all know it. It is going to happen, the question is how will it be handled, IMO. What I am saying is that I think the milk/meat distinction is tough to get your arms around where the rubber meats (tee hee) the road. I'm not sure it practically exists.

[Cop-out warning again!!!] That's why we have a correlation process. These are not calls that individual teachers should be making or that even individual wards or stakes should be making. Perhaps the church could do a better job with option 1.

[pelagius]

I continue to think that meat vs baby food distinction is not the dynamic at play in gospel doctrine and church correlation. I would describe the goal of gospel doctrine as,

Devotional

as opposed to

Critical, Scholarly, Academic, maintaining doctrinal purity (sorry, those manuals are not designed to teach doctrine), discussing troubling aspects of doctrine, etc


I don't think gospel doctrine is about teaching and expounding doctrine. It is a devotional with heavy emphasis on application to daily life (at least I think this is the first order concern). The cost of talking about "controversial" or really simply things that just aren't well known is actually quite high given the goal. I think the appropriate metric is what devotional value does a certain approach, topic or discussion add.

[UtahDan]

I am not thinking so much about "meat," a term Paul uses to describe true doctrines that are built on simpler foundational doctrines, as I am about controversial topics, hobby topics, speculation, and the like. I don't think those belong in GD class. Maybe not in any church-sponsored class. Make sense?

Oh you've made sense all along. I'm just saying that it is hard to think of many of those issues that don't flow naturally out of topics that are basic. Don't we all see exactly this every week? I'm repeating now probably, but I think those conversations are happening and will happen and the only question the shape they will take and what information will be disseminated. Just like so many other things, the church can be proactive or reactive there.

[Cop-out warning again!!!] That's why we have a correlation process. These are not calls that individual teachers should be making or that even individual wards or stakes should be making. Perhaps the church could do a better job with option 1.

You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

[LA Ute]

I continue to think that meat vs baby food distinction is not the dynamic at play in gospel doctrine and church correlation. I would describe the goal of gospel doctrine as,

Devotional

as opposed to

Critical, Scholarly, Academic, maintaining doctrinal purity (sorry, those manuals are not designed to teach doctrine), discussing troubling aspects of doctrine, etc


I don't think gospel doctrine is about teaching and expounding doctrine. It is a devotional with heavy emphasis on application to daily life (at least I think this is the first order concern). The cost of talking about "controversial" or really simply things that just aren't well known is actually quite high given the goal. I think the appropriate metric is what devotional value does a certain approach, topic or discussion add.

Very well said.

You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

My cleverness is so profound that I don't even know what it is I am trying to trick you into giving away. I hate when that happens.

[UtahDan]

I don't think gospel doctrine is about teaching and expounding doctrine. It is a devotional with heavy emphasis on application to daily life (at least I think this is the first order concern). The cost of talking about "controversial" or really simply things that just aren't well known is actually quite high given the goal. I think the appropriate metric is what devotional value does a certain approach, topic or discussion add.

That is an interesting take.

If Sunday school is not a place for teaching and expounding doctrine, but is primarily for the cultivation of spiritual experiences, what we are talking about is a variety of mysticism, no?

Also, where should teaching take place in the church. And for that matter is it important? Not trying to be flip, honestly.

[pelagius]

That is an interesting take.

If Sunday school is not a place for teaching and expounding doctrine, but is primarily for the cultivation of spiritual experiences, what we are talking about is a variety of mysticism, no?

Not in my view but I suppose like most things it depends on your definition. However, I always thought most definitions view mysticism as moving beyond devotional forms of worship.

Also, where should teaching take place in the church. And for that matter is it important? Not trying to be flip, honestly.

I think that church is devotional heavy when you view worship and other "instructional times" as a whole.

Sacrament Mtg: Devotional

Priesthood: Devotional

Gospel Pricinciples: Basic doctrinal exposition with some devotional aspects

Gospel Doctrine: Devotional

Seminary: Devotional with focus on facilitating a conversion experience

BYU Religion/Institute: High variance, but I would say on average it is devotional with some focus on learning facts for testing

I think I would like to see more "Critical, Scholarly, Academic" at the BYU Religion/Institute level

I am hard pressed to be upset that our worship services focus on worship. On the other hand, we do spend a lot of time at church. It wouldn't break my heart to see one hour of 3 with less of a devotional focus.

[UtahDan]

My cleverness is so profound that I don't even know what it is I am trying to trick you into giving away. I hate when that happens.

I do not envy you the headache you will have when you awake. But for now, rest well and dream of large women.

[Portland Ute]

Also, where should teaching take place in the church. And for that matter is it important? Not trying to be flip, honestly.

Not at the temple. We've already had that discussion, haven't we?

Maybe in seminary. Seems to me that seminary teachers love to hypothesize in front of classes filled with impressionable youth.

Maybe learning should just be done on our own outside of "official" church meetings... I think L.A. suggested that route. Although, it's not as if Sunstone and other such groups are looked upon with much acceptance by the Church officially or as a membership.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I continue to think that meat vs baby food distinction is not the dynamic at play in gospel doctrine and church correlation. I would describe the goal of gospel doctrine as,

Devotional

as opposed to

Critical, Scholarly, Academic, maintaining doctrinal purity (sorry, those manuals are not designed to teach doctrine), discussing troubling aspects of doctrine, etc


I don't think gospel doctrine is about teaching and expounding doctrine. It is a devotional with heavy emphasis on application to daily life (at least I think this is the first order concern). The cost of talking about "controversial" or really simply things that just aren't well known is actually quite high given the goal. I think the appropriate metric is what devotional value does a certain approach, topic or discussion add.

Well said.

I may have been the one to introduce the term "meat" into the discussion. Admittedly, that term can mean a lot of different things and probably wasn't the best choice of words.

[UtahDan]

I think that church is devotional heavy when you view worship and other "instructional times" as a whole.

Sacrament Mtg: Devotional

Priesthood: Devotional

Gospel Pricinciples: Basic doctrinal exposition with some devotional aspects

Gospel Doctrine: Devotional

Seminary: Devotional with focus on facilitating a conversion experience

BYU Religion/Institute: High variance, but I would say on average it is devotional with some focus on learning facts for testing

I think I would like to see more "Critical, Scholarly, Academic" at the BYU Religion/Institute level

I am hard pressed to be upset that our worship services focus on worship. On the other hand, we do spend a lot of time at church. It wouldn't break my heart to see one hour of 3 with less of a devotional focus.

What you are saying is that we don't teach doctrine anywhere in the church (or at least that it is not our object to) and all the heads in the room are bobbing up and down in agreement.