Is it OK for someone in a Sunday school class to correct the teacher or a comment from somebody in the class if they say something wrong? You’ll say “of course you can, that is the right thing to do!” Well, let me give the following examples.
- Teacher says LDS church gave up polygamy in 1890. You raise your had and say that on the church website it says polygamy continued to be sanctioned by the church into the 1900s.
- The teacher says that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim, also called the interpreters, to translate the Book of Mormon. After biting your tongue so hard you draw blood, you speak up and say according to lds.com, in addition to the interpreters, he used a rock he found in the ground, and put it in a hat with his head over the opening.
- A Member of the Stake Pres who is visiting your ward says in class that people should pay tithing on their gross income. You, still healing from the sore tongue from last weeks episode (see #2 above) jump up and say that the handbook specifically says that nobody is to make any comment of how to pay tithing, only that they pay on their increase. [1]
So, how can one be “honest in your dealings with your fellow men” [2] , and not correct the above mistakes? How can you correct the above falsehoods without coming across like a troublemaker, or even worse, an apostate? As I’ve said before, I’m offered a little more leeway in this ward as it is the ward I served as bishop. But how can the regular member, of which I am fast becoming, speak up and correct controversial errors?
[1] This actually happened to me a few years after I was released as bishop. The SP counselor stood his ground and said the SP taught that it should be on gross. I backed down and said nothing else. He later called me at home to apologize, and said he looked it up and I was right!
[2] this is a temple recommend question. I guess we don’t need to be honest with our fellow women? That would explain a lot of marital discord in the world!
Wheat & Tares 
It depends, doesn’t it? Sometimes, it might be appropriate to speak up (especially if one can do so in a helpful sort of way). Sometimes, it may be best to be silent. This is not a matter of being honest with one’s fellowman; there are other principles at play.
If you ever find out how to correct misinformation in Sunday School, let the rest of us know, please. This has long been a dilemma of mine.
That is a very expansive interpretation of being “honest with your fellow man.” I don’t think that you are expected to be the Guardian of Truth for what other people say, particularly when the other person has some mantle of authority, including a simple teacher.
In the classes I attend these days, most of the Crazy (and there is quite a bit of it) comes from one or two class members. This is typically a comment that the Constitution is hanging by a thread, elders of the church are gonna save it, yada, yada. It’s political opinion bolstered by questionable history. The class generally let’s these people have their say so we can move on.
When the teacher says things I disagree with, it’s typically straight out of the lesson manual or church materials. Take for example the inaccurate details of the Sweetwater Crossing, or stories of Thomas Marsh or Symonds Ryder. Or in the Bible it is often the origin of the book being studied, or scriptures taken out of context without correct historical background. These situations are different than the examples in the OP because if I argue against them I am arguing against the official material published for the teaching of the class. At least in the OP examples there are official church materials on your side.
If I were to respond, I think people respond better to questions and concerns than they do to corrections. And it always helps to have an authoritative source. So perhaps one way to address the tithing question is to say something like “I’ve often heard we’re supposed to pay on gross, but I struggle to square that with this official statement: (read statement)”. It takes some preparation, or maybe luck, but cell phones and tablets help.
I do not do this. Rather, I hold it all in during the class, then I come read blogs and make my comments here. I would probably enjoy church more if I could open up and say what I really think, but I just don’t feel comfortable doing that.
I’d say it depends on a few things.
First, context. Is the incorrect/incomplete statement central to the subject being taught, or is it peripheral, tangential, or in passing? If the latter, trying to correct the speaker is likely to be more of a distraction than an aid.
Second, intent. Are you making the correction for a worthy reason (e.g., helping bring someone to a fuller understanding)? Or are you doing it for selfish or destructive reasons—e.g., out of pride, to show off how much you know, to take someone down a notch, to shake someone’s belief, etc. We’re very good at rationalizing our part in conversations, making ourselves the hero, the winner, the altruist. Sometimes it’s worth pausing for honest reflection and self-interrogation about our motives, before speaking.
Third, manner. Are you saying it in a way that’s supportive, persuasive, and positive? Or are you doing it to throw bombs, to scandalize, provoke, or start an argument? Even if your intentions are laudable, you can easily do more harm than good, if your words aren’t tailored for your audience. And charity should prevail. Our meetings are filled with people from all walks of life, all levels of mental ability and educational attainment, new converts and seasoned old-timers. Be sympathetic, understanding, and humble (recognizing that there are many things that *you* don’t know and that could warrant public correction).
So this is really a discussion of student ethics, one branch of the ethics of teaching. For a teacher, a clear ethical rule would be don’t teach anything you know to false or misleading. But LDS manuals contain lots of false and misleading statements, and teachers don’t know enough to avoid repeating that stuff to the class (plus adding some of their own false or misleading statements) — which often puts informed members of an LDS class into difficult student ethics situations: When and how to correct a teacher or fellow class member who says something false or misleading?
This whole mess is the result of bad LDS teaching materials and calling teachers who shouldn’t be teaching. So that’s the real problem. LDS leaders have spent two generations putting lots of money into building investments and a real estate portfolio and have put almost no money into curriculum development or teacher training. You reap what you sow.
In class, I’ll respond with a correcting comment (phrased as politely as I can) when it is the sort of misstatement that is likely to offend or confuse some other class members. The little stuff I let pass.
But much of the time I just avoid the problem by avoiding the classes. And this is a problem the Church really needs to address: LDS curriculum and content is so bad that some people avoid teaching or attending classes because of the ethical dilemmas the class creates by the bad content.
Your point is so well articulated. To me, not speaking up in Church when your three scenarios are taught is the equivalent of promoting falsehoods and parading them as truth, something which troubles my conscience greatly. My husband was asked by our bishop recently to remain silent and not bring anything troubling up even though it may be true. Needless to say, we no longer attend since truth cannot be explored.
Some interesting thoughts on the subject here:
https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2008/04/an-ethics-of-teaching/
What Rockwell and Dave B said.
I’m also not concerned about answering the question am I “honest in my dealings with my fellow man” when I don’t tell some people what I really think of them. I don’t consider the question a license for me to correct every misstatement in church.
I hear you Rockwell
I remember one time years ago when I was the gospel doctrine teacher and the topic was the responsibilities of the Q of the 12. A class member cited a scripture in the D and C from a section that was dated previous to the organization of the quorum. I thanked them for their comment but noted that fact. The next Sunday the class member came with a conference talk in hand that used the scripture they had cited in a talk describing the duties of the 12. I was not about to say that the apostle in question had made an historical error in front of the class, so I thanked him for the correction and moved on.
From the comments I see that it is the general consensus that not correcting a false statement is not being dishonest. But then is the writer of the lesson manual, or the person that approved it dishonest? Or is everybody blameless?
This is a very timely post for me. Last night during the leadership session of our stake conference the visiting general authority explained that polygamy was practiced in the early church because it was legal in the US then vs now when it is illegal. He also said men used to have concubines (he just dropped that comment in there and didn’t really tie it to anything). He said the church would not have survived with out polygamy. These are some of the worst reasons I have heard justifying polygamy. Later he opened it up for Q&A. I almost burst as I tried to decide whether to ask him to clarify (or revise) his earlier statement. In the end I just sat on my hands. My concern was that I couldn’t think of a way to ask the question that wouldn’t have embarrassed the GA.
We make truth claims as a church. It is one of our slogans—“we have/teach truth,” so we set a high bar for ourselves. We ought to be able to tactfully and respectfully add/correct faulty information taught in classes-at least if we have church sourced material to back it up. But, we also needn’t become super picky about every tiny detail. I think it is especially important for leaders to correct misinformation. One way a leader might help a teacher is to let the teacher know after class and have the teacher “correct the record” the following week.
I, too, don’t attend class because I struggle with this issue—of sitting silently while inaccurate/false info is taught. I don’t want to “spoil” the “Spirit” for others.
One time, during the Prop 8 campaign when the first counselor in our Stk Presidency was teaching all adults, including YM/YW, the “Six Consequences if Prop 8 Passes, “ he referred to clergy in Canada running afoul with hate speech laws I raised my hand and pointed out the US Constitution is different than Canada’s.
Sadly, I there is now a big trust gap between me and leaders of our church. I don’t trust what they write or say is accurate. Especially since they rarely, if ever, publically correct the record.
“Last night during the leadership session of our stake conference the visiting general authority explained that polygamy was practiced in the early church because it was legal in the US then vs now when it is illegal. He also said men used to have concubines (he just dropped that comment in there and didn’t really tie it to anything). He said the church would not have survived with out polygamy.”
Wow!
One thing leaders might’ve learned from the demise of the Priesthood ban is to refrain from crafting explanations aka Bruce R. McConkie. It is amazing to me a GA today would be saying these things. If it were me I would at least write the GA a letter/email sharing info on this subject.
I no longer bother correcting teachers at church. Some of that is trying to be kind to the teacher as most are not terribly knowledgeable about their topics or teaching in general and don’t seem able to handle feedback. Some of it is me just giving up hope for better. Like others, I prefer to just not attend Sunday school and avoid several teachers entirely.
Another point—we can continue to practice polygamy in our temples—on an eternal basis which we emphasize as the most important form of marriage we can participate in.
If I am wrong I want to be corrected, fast. I dont want to spread misinformation and it is nearly impossible not to be wrong once and awhile.
But I will spread a bit of misinformation. Tithing is on our “interest annually”. Interest implies ownership in this context. I have no interest/ownership on what I am taxed.
Imagine tithing in Sweden if my marginal tax rate is 60%. I would be tithing 25% of my net income. I think the Lord intentionally chose the word interest, not haphazardly.
But Steven Harper suggests that tithing as we understand it today is AFTER we are “tithed” of our surplus. It is an interesting thought.
I also would want to be told if my information isn’t correct and allowed the opportunity to correct it.
(I know this is not directly commenting on the topic at hand) but, regarding tithing if one tithes in gross then it would seem they do not need to tithe on money received in the form of Social Security or retirement funds.
Addendum
do not need to tithe on money received in the form of Social Security or retirement funds
….once they have retired and are living on thoseakready tithed funds.
It’s so much easier to avoid going to Sunday School as to avoid the conundrum altogether. I find that correcting mistakes leads to harsh feelings towards me. Avoiding class altogether and doing something like genealogy makes me feel much better.
As for the seer stone issue, I hope that issue is going to be resolved soon. I was listening to the podcast https://www.mormonchannel.org/listen/series/saints/7-the-gift-and-power-of-god and the talk openly about seer stones, saying the Urim & Thummim is just a seer stone. With the publication of the new Church History “Saints” that Morgan talked about last week, I think this issue is going to be integrated into the church.
Having said that, I asked my son, a sophomore in high school how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. He said “Urim & Thummim.” I said no, it was a seer stone. You’d have thought my wife thought I was telling anti-Mormon lies, but she did attend the launch party with me and I think she will come around eventually. If you click on the link above, it shows Joseph looking into a hat, so the church is starting to change to story of translation.
I will also note that episode 8 discusses Mary Whitmer’s vision of Moroni and the golden plates. This is a topic from the new history, and has not been well-known among those in the pews. I think this new “Saints” series is going to help get better history out there, so I think good things are coming.
Speaking of the podcast of this book, has anybody figured out how to search for it in normal podcast apps? I have searched over and over each time it was mentioned that it was a podcast. Only with the link above did I get to see them, but to get them into my podcast application I have to go to each of the 8 pages, click on the headphone icon, then on download, then take each episode and upload it so my podcast application can then download them. Quite a few steps. It is hard not to feel like it is a bit like the essays – keep it a bit hard to find.
I use a simple rubric to decide what I will let pass and what I will correct. If I feel that the misinformation is essential to ones salvation then I will say something. I also hold the teacher or anyone who comments to a higher standard than someone who doesn’t comment. This is what I tell people. “I personally don’t care what you think, I only care what you do and if what you think makes you a better person than you have my blessing.“ On the other hand, if someone chooses to comment in class or if they said yes to teaching a class, then I will comment if they teach false doctrine. As a consequence in my ward people think before they speak if I’m in the class.
Two examples come to mind. A member of the Bishopric was teaching PH and started quoting Elder Bednar who coined the phrase, “the enabling power of the Atonement” which I find to be one of the most pernicious doctrines I have heard. I actually stood up and took over the class for the next ten minutes correcting what this brother had said. We are now good friends, play golf together, and attend an inter-faith Bible study class together.
The second example was another PH class and the teacher quoted President Oaks who said that “God only explains why he gives a command one out of a hundred times.” I commented and said that President Oaks, who was Elder Oaks when he made this remark, was wrong. We argued in class and he charged me with driving out the spirit. I countered and said it is false doctrine that drives away the spirit. By then the class was over so I went home and wrote out an extensive article proving that the statement by President Oaks was wrong and why President Oaks would have said something like that from a faith promoting perspective. We are now good friends and had a very pleasant visit in Church today.
We are sadly lacking in both critical thinking skills as well as debating skills in the Church. And if the Church isn’t going to do something to address this issue then it behoves those of us who do have these skill to demonstrate them to others.
Great topic of discussion. I’m with Mormon Heretic.
I sat in the foyer during PM today and we discussed the BoM geography problem and later the Book of Abraham problem. One of my friends was reading a book published in 1959 that was explaining the 2 Cumorah idea and placing the setting in Central America.. I didn’t know those ideas were being foisted on the Mormon public back then. I mentioned the story of Zelph and he said Zelph could have lived later, like 1600’s and still been a white Nephite. He doesn’t believe Joseph Smith thought the midwest was Nephite lands.
My friend was confident that there was middle east DNA in the Cherokee Indians but he had never heard of my relative Rod Meldrum. I explained that to my understanding the DNA evidence did not support the BoM migration because the dates were wrong. The X haplotype, my relative claims is found in Indians around the Great Lakes and in the middle east, has been sub-categorized and the divergence of different sub-types dated. The sub-types in North America diverged way too early from Asian subtypes to be Lehi or even Jared. But neither one of us could convince the other.
He said God gives us just enough knowledge to have faith. I suggested that God then might give more knowledge or he might take it away. He asked how I thought do we have knowledge taken away? I explained the Book of Abraham problem, how it once bolstered Joseph Smith’s claims to be a prophet and now it showed he was making it up, maybe by inspiration. He had heard about the Book of Abraham problem and trotted out the usual FARMs answers. Then retreated to we really don’t know- it is speculation.Point well taken considering the audience.
*****
A young attractive divorced woman who recently moved into the ward walked by. My friend is single and about 10 ears older than her.( 40’s versus 50’s). He had heard about her and been suggested by mutual friends to check her out. He hesitated. I have been married 33 years but I don’t have a problem talking to unmarried women. I had met her before so I started up a conversation with her. I tried to steer it in his direction but she didn’t seem interested. Ah, well.
Another attractive 30 year old woman who had become discouraged with the Singles Ward and kicked herself out a year early was sitting on the other side of the room (sluffing Relief Society) and listening intently. I have no idea about where she stands on the previous topics. But she opened up about her experiences in the Single’s ward. We had a bluntly honest discussion about her desires to find a suitable person to marry and the dwindling probability that it would happen. I jokingly tried to get her interested in my 25 year old son who lives across the country. We explored her actual options including dating inactive Mormons and non-members. She seemed extremely interested in my perspective especially the personal histories of members of the ward in spite of being half my age.
I also tried to take a 14 year old YM’s phone away from him, telling him it was fast Sunday and he was supposed to be fasting from social media. President’s Nelson’s call to action is inaction, stop using your phone! He laughed but refused to give me his phone. Smart kid.
I think it was a most productive use of 2 hours of our time. These are real people, not just bloggers who I have no idea if y’all take anything serious or not. I don’t.
Bob Cooper, mind elaborating why you think the phrase, “the enabling power of the Atonement” is “one of the most pernicious doctrines”? Also interested in understanding what is wrong with Elder Oak’s statement? Do you mean statistically based on the records/interpretations we have or doctrinally?
Happy Hubby, I used the Google Podcast App and got all 8 episodes when I subscribed. It’s free, and I like it about as much as the iTunes app. (I don’t have iPhone anymore–hated it, except for the podcast app.) You can even choose a variable speed to listen faster or slower. I like 1.3x speed the best for most podcasts.
Rockwell: “If you ever find out how to correct misinformation in Sunday School, let the rest of us know, please. This has long been a dilemma of mine.”
I won’t presume to know a method that always works, but I’ve seen some methods that worked well at times and have tried to learn to use them, when I feel it appropriate or necessary to do anything at all. (I really, really dislike listening to those “old gasbag high priests” who think they know it all and must correct anyone who ways anything mistaken or ignorant or doesn’t say things in a way that pleases them. I don’t wanna be one of them.) And it’s important to me to remember that I am sometimes as wrong as what I have heard and thought wrong.
First of my observed methods: Don’t take ownership of the idea contrary to whatever the teacher or commenter erroneously said. Instead, use phrases like “But I have read that …….. [citing source if you can]. How does that fit with what I understood you to say?” or “Some people have thought/taught … How would you evaluate that?” If you are able to cite an official publication or a General Authority (which is often the case), you may get no pushback and may even get appreciation. If you are able to cite a well-know history, e.g. Rough Stone Rolling, or historian e.g. Leonard Arrington (include a brief statement of credentials), it can reduce pushback. In any event, by not taking ownership of the contrary idea/fact, and by taking ownership of one’s understanding rather than throwing the “offender’s” words back at them, it is at least sometimes possible to get the idea out there without making it a personal challenge and without offense. [It will still throw off some of the less flexible teachers.]
Second (really a variation): One fellow prepares for the lesson in advance — first, by reviewing the subject and considering what is the mostly likely standard approach to it that he expects to disagree with. Then he finds a GA quote or scripture to back up his position and memorizes it and its source, so that he is prepared to repeat it with citation, rather than express his own unsupported opinion.
Third method: Put it off. Say, I’ve read something I thought persuasive that seemed contrary to what I just heard. Can I/we research that and report back next week? Then the idea that what was said may not be right is out there, without significantly derailing a less flexible teacher.
Good luck. Most people don’t want to do the work either on sources or their own style. It’s so much easier to let things go by or to skip class. Often I’m one of those most people, so don’t think I’ve got this down!.
My big takeaway from the comments is that most of my readers don’t like to correct people, so they just avoid going to class in the first place!
Twice in the last year I’ve gone up to the GD teacher to talk about the lesson, once about the reasons people leave the church and the other about handcart pioneers and FD Richards promise that if they went forward they’d all be ok. I figured it was best to go up after class and just speak one on one not as a correction but just adding more information.
Hi Onandagus
This is a good question. I could speak volumes on this subject but I don’t want to derail the discussion on how to be effective when you disagree with things said at Church so let me give you the shortest answer possible. This is how President Nelson, then Elder Nelson, explained it in General Conference of April 2017.
“It is doctrinally incomplete to speak of the Lord’s atoning sacrifice by shortcut phrases, such as “the Atonement” or “the enabling power of the Atonement” or “applying the Atonement” or “being strengthened by the Atonement.” These expressions present a real risk of misdirecting faith by treating the event as if it had living existence and capabilities independent of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.”
He then went on to say,
“There is no amorphous entity called “the Atonement” upon which we may call for succor, healing, forgiveness, or power. Jesus Christ is the source. Sacred terms such as Atonement and Resurrection describe what the Savior did, according to the Father’s plan, so that we may live with hope in this life and gain eternal life in the world to come. The Savior’s atoning sacrifice—the central act of all human history—is best understood and appreciated when we expressly and clearly connect it to Him.”
If what President Nelson said is true, and I believe it is, then in my mind the term “the enabling power of the Atonement” is pernicious because it sounds good but it isn’t true and thus instead of leading us to Christ it is leading us away in a very subtle way.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Onandagus,
Your second question would take a much longer explanation and divert this discussion even more. I’ll leave it to Bishop Bill to decide if he doesn’t mind me usurping his posting.
Mormon Heretic – can you pass on the EXACT name of the podcast? I heard people saying it was a podcast, but they were never clear on the name.
Happy Hubby, it’s called Saints. If you’re trying to find it on iTunes search the full name of the church. You’ll never find it searching “Saints”. I’m just downloading it now. Episode 5 appears to be missing though.
On the OP. Sometimes I speak up in lessons, sometimes I don’t. I think at this point I have zero capital to blow. Done that already.
Bishop Bill, keep in mind that the OT year for Gospel Doctrine is the worst. The manual routinely mangles the OT scriptures it cites in support of LDS ideas that have nothing to do with the OT. This year of the curriculum is beyond repair. They should either go to a three-year rotation or just give us a year off every fourth year.
But it’s worse than this. My sense is that the with the current retrenchment cycle the leadership has finally crossed the line from a balance of faith and reasons into full blown fideism. Increasingly, facts are becoming irrelevant to explanation and justification of LDS historical, doctrinal, and scriptural beliefs. Increasingly, the general membership is uninterested in books that treat LDS history or the reasoned defense of LDS doctrine. The result is that LDS Sunday School has less and less to offer anyone who is actually interested in learning anything or offering informed comments. The result is that these folks are just giving up on Sunday School. The best thing for all involved at this point — the Church as well as the members — is to simply kill Sunday School and move to a two-hour block.
Yes, it is simply called “Saints.” I did have some trouble finding it, but I can’t remember. Probably Hedgehog’s solution works.
Bishop Bill. Though the inference “readers don’t like to correct people, so they just avoid going to class” can be made from the small sample of comments above, I think there are more reasons for Sunday School non-attendance. Dave B touches on some of those. My wife stopped attending because she was consistently being marginalized for her views. For instance, when she would mention she didn’t agree with polygamy or couldn’t see how God thought that was right, there would be some “high status” brother or sister who would condescendingly let her know not to worry and say something to the effect: “It’s natural for the weak to struggle but when you’ve attained the faith they have, its all OK”. She eventually left the church, a decision I fully support because it wasn’t a good thing for her (I have my reasons for continuing to stay and she supports me as well.)
Ironically, I’m in the Sunday School presidency now. Though I had not attended for years to be with my wife, I now attend Gospel Doctrine occasionally. I’ve found the most good I do isn’t correcting someone who I think is “wrong”, it’s preventing other people from being marginalized like my wife was. For instance in one class a women made a comment about the power structure between David and Bathsheba and an old, former Stake president started ‘splain’n why Bathsheba was at fault. So I jumped in with my two cents why this sister had a point (and it definitely was the better point). It helped embolden others to speak as well and in the end we weren’t left with the former “authority” having the final word. I really felt good about that and it’s been sort of my Sunday School purpose since.
Bob – Thanks for explaining. I was wondering what your objection was as well. I’d forgotten p. Nelson’s conference talk and had missed entirely that he was publicly correcting e.Bednar (if he was doing that, although it seems likely…)
“Is it OK for someone in a Sunday school class to correct the teacher”
I do it anyway. Whether it is okay is up to each person to judge. Where I tend to challenge is in areas that could lead to unnecessary guilt and shame.
“Teacher says LDS church gave up polygamy in 1890.”
Inasmuch as this is more of a Trivial Pursuit question, I probably would not spend a lot of time on it in class.
“…he used a rock he found in the ground, and put it in a hat with his head over the opening.”
So he did. But again, whether to beat this horse in class sort of depends on the nature of the class. If historical details are important then do it, otherwise be happy with your superior knowledge of history.
“A Member of the Stake Pres who is visiting your ward says in class that people should pay tithing on their gross income.”
As the consequences of that misinformation is immediate and relevant, it is a thing I will declare in a class. Modern living makes it very difficult to precisely define “increase” if you are not a farmer.
I’m with Dave C on this one: “It helped embolden others to speak as well and in the end we weren’t left with the former authority having the final word.”
Shortly after challenging my high priest group teacher on a point of doctrine I became the teacher. As with your experience, I noticed that men having profound experiences in their lives were not speaking. How is it that I am the “teacher” of such persons? Really I was the facilitator, the moderator, to make sure everyone’s contribution was heard and valued. What good is rote memorization when the median age in the quorum was about 70 years old? There is nothing left to teach but there may well be things left to discover or realize in their lives; to climb another rung on their ladder.
Partial thread jack, but (@ CBob Cooper) I’m with Bednar on the enabling power and not with Nelson, so, there’s the true rub in the problem presented in the OP. On some issues, it’s simply a matter of opinion.
Concur with Dave B on the quality of teaching.
Dave B: “This whole mess is the result of bad LDS teaching materials and calling teachers who shouldn’t be teaching. So that’s the real problem.”
Back in the 1970’s was “Teacher Development Program”. It was fairly rigorous and I still use techniques learned in that curriculum. Pre-assess (do students really need this particular thing?); behaviorally stated objectives — if the lesson does not promote a change of some sort, why are we here? and finally follow-up or review to see if it went in. The lesson itself will rarely take more than 5 or 10 minutes with plenty of time for discussion. Try to make it an object lesson. Use multiple media. Words alone have a retention rate around 10 percent is all.
As someone who has been called a couple times as the GD teacher and several times as other teachers, and has served as Bishop etc…. I can tell you the lesson manuals for the Gospel Doctrine class are difficult at best to teach from. That usually left me trying to tie all lessons to – “How can this help me draw closer to the Savior”? So, I simply left out most of the lesson material. I think most people do the same. That is not being diss-honest, but simply focusing on what is of most value to those in attendance.
I’m finding this terrifying. I get called as GD teacher every ten or so years, have always had a very busy life with little time for callings other than essentials, and I notice it’s much the same for most others. I’m no scholar. My confidence is such that were my teaching to be challenged I’d just fold and let someone else take over. I do what I’m mandated to do and am unqualified to do otherwise. Doesn’t mean I like being in that position, but I’m not going to argue with anyone about it.I’m assuming all of us do this in our discretionary time.
I think we all need to give each other a break.
I would be a lot more leery about correcting false doctrine than correcting historical misinformation. False doctrine is pretty open to interpretation, especially considering the Savior had a rigorously narrow definition of His doctrine. Is anything that isn’t faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost false doctrine? Does the position of a leader automatically determine what constitutes doctrine?
For the record, Bob, I’m not attempting to threadjack, and I completely agree with you and President Nelson about the enabling power of the Atonement.
Bob Cooper said: Your second question would take a much longer explanation and divert this discussion even more. I’ll leave it to Bishop Bill to decide if he doesn’t mind me usurping his posting.
Bob, divert away!
@Bob Cooper, thanks for your explanation. So it seems that the real problem is using those phrases in isolation as if they are independent form the “atoner” and the father. The descriptive and informative phrase itself is fine as long as it is deeply connected to the savior. I read EB’s talk…maybe the title is misleading but the talk, imho, clearly references the savior. I guess whenever I hear the word “atonement”, I cannot but think of the atoner himself. How can there be an an atonement without an atoner? How can there be an atoner without a purpose and therefore plan, which comes from the father., etc.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts on Elder Oaks points..