I learned in church today

[LA Ute]

No, I think you said it right, especially about cherry-picking and taking things out of context. They also get rid of problematic passages in the TOTHPOTHC manuals. It's not just the GP one.

I get what you and Niku are saying, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, the lesson I was supposed to teach today was about Mosiah 18 and what the baptismal covenant should mean to us personally. I think a good teacher could do a wonderful job with that, and even a poor teacher with a class full of people who care and have good hearts could end up blessing the lives of everyone involved. What does the manual have to do with that? Second, I don't think 40 minutes on Sunday morning in a class full of people from all walks of life and with varying degrees of understanding is the place to discuss "problematic passages." But that's just me.

Third (bonus point!), Gospel Doctrine class is devotional, not educational, in purpose. I think you guys expect too much.

[Pheidippides]

I get what you and Niku are saying, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, the lesson I was supposed to teach today was about Mosiah 18 and what the baptismal covenant should mean to us personally. I think a good teacher could do a wonderful job with that, and even a poor teacher with a class full of people who care and have good hearts could end up blessing the lives of everyone involved. What does the manual have to do with that? Second, I don't think 40 minutes on Sunday morning in a class full of people from all walks of life and with varying degrees of understanding is the place to discuss "problematic passages." But that's just me.

Third (bonus point!), Gospel Doctrine class is devotional, not educational, in purpose. I think you guys expect too much.

Who's talking about discussing problematic passages? I'm not, nor do I. That's an issue for another day. But can we at least not take things wildly out of context?

I want you to read the questions in the GP manual next time you prep a lesson. Really read them. If you do not find them exceptionally leading, counselor, then I will start to question your reading of them.

We had Mosiah 18 today too. I love that passage. It was not a good lesson.

This problem is not unique to us, btw. This is a critique that I am told applies to other religions as well.

[LA Ute]

Who's talking about discussing problematic passages? I'm not, nor do I. That's an issue for another day. But can we at least not take things wildly out of context?

I was responding to wuap on that one.

I want you to read the questions in the GP manual next time you prep a lesson. Really read them. If you do not find them exceptionally leading, counselor, then I will start to question your reading of them.

We had Mosiah 18 today too. I love that passage. It was not a good lesson.

This problem is not unique to us, btw. This is a critique that I am told applies to other religions as well.

Fair points. I'm not talking about you, just laying out an opposing point of view. What's going on here is that you and I see the purpose of GD class differently. There's room for lots of opinion on such things. Someday, of course, you will see how wrong you are, but don't worry, when that happens I will not insist on lunch at an expensive place.

[Pheidippides]

I was responding to wuap on that one.



Fair points. I'm not talking about you, just laying out an opposing point of view. What's going on here is that you and I see the purpose of GD class differently. There's room for lots of opinion on such things. Someday, of course, you will see how wrong you are, but don't worry, when that happens I will not insist on lunch at an expensive place.

I actually don't think we think the purpose is different at all. I think we differ in the approach the manuals should take. Note that I teach GP, not GD.

It has been eye-opening to study the topics every week without looking at the lesson manual - i.e., I look at the topic, put together a lesson, and then look at the manual after my lesson is done. I just simply do not read the scriptures - and especially the NT - in anything close to the same way that the manual writers do sometimes.

I am on one tonight because the Mosiah 18 lesson today (again, GP and not GD) had me hopping mad but not saying anything out of a desire to not be controversial.

[Scorcho]

I think people expect too much from a lay ministry, you’re going to have to give a lot of latitude when people are volunteering their time and have limited knowledge and time to prepare. I certainly have said and taught things in a Priesthood Quorum or a Gospel Doctrine Class that I look back on and wish I hadn’t.

I don't believe the primary goal of Gospel Classes is to educate. I'd say the lessons are more geared to inspire more than anything else.

[Green Monstah]

Our HPGL gave the opening prayer in sac today. He's a tea party guy, but not obnoxious about it. He doesnt talk politics in church, but does talk patriotism.

During the prayer, he thanked God for our veterans and those who died. He then prayed for our President and his administration, that they might look to Gid for guidance to lead the country out of economic and political turmoil. It was done with sincerity and I was impressed with his ability to put politics aside and pray objectively for an administration he is opposed to without condescending.

[The Fourth Nephite]

I learned that when a woman gives birth, a lot of her sins are forgiven.

[DU Ute]

I learned that when a woman gives birth, a lot of her sins are forgiven.

Like getting knocked up in the first place?

[The Fourth Nephite]

Like getting knocked up in the first place?

Crap, getting knocked up is a sin?? My Bishop's wife is in deep doo-doo then. How do I break the news to her?

[ERCougar]

I get what you and Niku are saying, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, the lesson I was supposed to teach today was about Mosiah 18 and what the baptismal covenant should mean to us personally. I think a good teacher could do a wonderful job with that, and even a poor teacher with a class full of people who care and have good hearts could end up blessing the lives of everyone involved. What does the manual have to do with that? Second, I don't think 40 minutes on Sunday morning in a class full of people from all walks of life and with varying degrees of understanding is the place to discuss "problematic passages." But that's just me.

Third (bonus point!), Gospel Doctrine class is devotional, not educational, in purpose. I think you guys expect too much.

I completely agree with your second and third points. Those of us who are interested have CUF (or timesandseasons or whatever) to discuss the controversial stuff. Most people aren't all that interested and it's selfish of us (or the instructor) to devote time to it in class. I also agree that the manuals are decent at keeping these discussions centered and not going off on crazy tangents (I'd guess that the "have you ever been persecuted for being a Mormon?" question was NOT in the manual). A good teacher can do something interesting with the manual.

I have two major problems with GD, at least as it's commonly done. First, it too often turns into a retrenchment hour. There aren't many things that bug me worse in the Church than this common idea that the world is getting increasingly wicked and we must fight it. This is not just a member thing--this comes all the way from the top. We are in the safest time in the history of mankind. More people have access to education, freedom, clean water, etc than ever before. Fewer teenagers are sexually active than they were 10-20 years ago. I don't get the pessimism. It may not be uniquely Mormon, but we sure are good at it.

Second, I hate the straw men that are continually put forth and beat down. All it does is belittle and isolate people who have doubts. And it makes me want to argue. Again, this stuff is probably not found in the manual.

Get rid of these two things and GD is a much more pleasant experience for me.

[wuapinmon]

I get what you and Niku are saying, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, the lesson I was supposed to teach today was about Mosiah 18 and what the baptismal covenant should mean to us personally. I think a good teacher could do a wonderful job with that, and even a poor teacher with a class full of people who care and have good hearts could end up blessing the lives of everyone involved. What does the manual have to do with that? Second, I don't think 40 minutes on Sunday morning in a class full of people from all walks of life and with varying degrees of understanding is the place to discuss "problematic passages." But that's just me.

Third (bonus point!), Gospel Doctrine class is devotional, not educational, in purpose. I think you guys expect too much.

I don't think you should discuss problematic passages either. But, I do think that it's dishonest to remove them from the narrative without footnoting what's missing, or at least using [...].

I disagree about your third point. It's called Sunday School. Not Sunday Devotional. Youthful seminary should not be the only academic exposure to the Scriptures that we receive.

[ERCougar]

I disagree about your third point. It's called Sunday School. Not Sunday Devotional. Youthful seminary should not be the only academic exposure to the Scriptures that we receive.

Yeah, but it really is Sunday Devotional--at least that's how most members view it (and would like to continue viewing it). I think that's fine. Christ never asked anyone to be well-educated--he asked them to be good. We should focus efforts at church on living good lives.

OTOH, seminary SHOULD be much more academic than it is. I've never taught seminary so maybe that's unrealistic. I'm pretty certain that most teenagers don't really care about an academic approach to the Gospel. But it IS called seminary. And it IS part of the school year. And everyone in Utah gets release time for it. It should be academic. Suck it up, kids. One of my major irritations is that I did four years of seminary, three years of religion at BYU, and two years in the mission field, and I know embarrassingly little about Christian theology and philosophy.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I ... There aren't many things that bug me worse in the Church than this common idea that the world is getting increasingly wicked and we must fight it. This is not just a member thing--this comes all the way from the top. We are in the safest time in the history of mankind. More people have access to education, freedom, clean water, etc than ever before. Fewer teenagers are sexually active than they were 10-20 years ago. I don't get the pessimism. It may not be uniquely Mormon, but we sure are good at it....

I agree especially with the highlighted portion, and I've included that point in several lessons over the past few years (along with the obvious follow-up that we're under orders to make the world still better, and not to lazily assume "all is well"). I always ask the women if there is another time in history in which they would have been better off, and the answer is invariably no.

Fareed Zakaria's recent commencement address at Harvard is very good on this point, and recites lots of data supporting the contention that overall, the world is better off today than at anytime in history.

[ERCougar]

I agree especially with the highlighted portion, and I've included that point in several lessons over the past few years (along with the obvious follow-up that we're under orders to make the world still better, and not to lazily assume "all is well"). I always ask the women if there is another time in history in which they would have been better off, and the answer is invariably no.

Fareed Zakaria's recent commencement address at Harvard is very good on this point, and recites lots of data supporting the contention that overall, the world is better off today than at anytime in history.

Ha. That's a great question to pose. I might bring that one up next time.

And great speech. I really like Fareed Zakaria.

[Pheidippides]

I agree especially with the highlighted portion, and I've included that point in several lessons over the past few years (along with the obvious follow-up that we're under orders to make the world still better, and not to lazily assume "all is well"). I always ask the women if there is another time in history in which they would have been better off, and the answer is invariably no.

Fareed Zakaria's recent commencement address at Harvard is very good on this point, and recites lots of data supporting the contention that overall, the world is better off today than at anytime in history.

Two huge thumbs up here. I hate the doom and gloom and am in no way convinced the world is more evil now than some other time. I would argue the opposite. Moreover, the concept is little more than a worn-out meme, argued by every generation in one form or another.