LDS Church News Says: “Use Proper Sources” With Gospel Teaching

I find it disappointing that lessons produced by the correlation program are designated as “inspired” while the hypothetical teacher apparently cannot be blessed with the same inspiration in trying to personalize their lesson for their local ward audience. Also, what about those times when the manual (and its external sources) are just plain incorrect, like last year in the Primary lesson on the Willie and Martin Companies? My lesson manual quoted from a highly embellished source published in the forties (and, to be honest, is not a source I could easily find, let alone find at the Distribution Center). So, am I to assume that in teaching my Primary students the real story of the Sweetwater Crossing based off of sources found in BYU Studies is somehow inferior to teaching the correlated manual wanted?

Sadly, it seems to me that if they wanted to prevent people from talking about Adam-God and other odd things they’re casting the net far too wide. We want to eliminate the fringe ideas like the White Horse and Horseshow Prophecies, to be sure, but I don’t think anyone benefits by telling teachers not to prayerfully make use of FeastUpontheWord.org and other similar sources.

What if the Lord, through his Holy Spirit, inspires an instructor to go beyond the correlated lesson manual in his/her lesson? Should a Church member follow that prompting of the Holy Spirit, or follow this Church policy?

I agree that the quotes in the O.P seem to discourage adapting the material to the local audience. Also, what if the material (like the Aaronic Priesthood manuals I teach out of) are woefully out of date? Quotes from Hugh B. Brown and Vaughn J. Featherstone mean nothing to deacons born in 1997.

I find the word choice in the recent Ensign article on this topic troubling(Teachings for our Time Nov. 2009)
“You may be *tempted* to prepare the lesson using other materials, but the conference talks are the approved curriculum.”
Imagine if it started, “You may be *prompted* to prepare….” Entirely different meaning, huh? SO all thoughts of material outside the lesson manual are from the devil?

If there is no room for any deviance, why include “Pray that the Holy Spirit will be with you as you study and teach the talk(s).”

I’ve sat through lessons that give the manual only a passing glance, and I think I know what Elder Oaks intended with his quotes, but I beliove the pendulum has swung too far. If I ran the circus, I’d take the “Preach My Gospel” approach. Speaking of which, why are they loosening up on what missionaries teach, trusting they’ll rely onthe Spirit, but take the exact opposite approach in Sunday School? These conflicting approaches to gospel teaching need to be corrolated

Well, I have taught SS and EQ quite a bit in my 30 years. I have always personalized.

But I have always fulfilled these (also from the CN article):

* Maintain purity of doctrine.
* Emphasize the importance of the family and the home.
* Place all the work of the Church under priesthood direction.
* Establish proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.
* Achieve unity and order in the Church.
* Ensure simplicity of Church programs and materials.

I am sure that at some of those points, we could reasonably disagree, but also I have found that I have had completely free hands, as long as it’s obvious that I’m not turning every single lesson to a discussion about my favorite topic. And I bring up some “interesting” stuff, too. I try not to be too “controversial,” though.

One could say, that for some, point three is controversial as it stands…

Actually, I don’t have a problem with the above quotes. I’ll continue to base my lessons around those in the Church manuals and use outside sources as I deem fit until someone in charge of me says not to do so. Then I’ll wait ’til they leave.

I find this very distasteful. One of the things I love about visiting other denominations around the world is how the gospel of Jesus Christ is “customized” to that particular area – be it in architecture, emphasis in teachings, etc. The world is not the Wasatch Front, Utah or the US. I think this is another well-meaning policy that will actually have a detrimental effect. But I’m not an inspired leader and that’s probably not what it says in the manual, so, please ignore that last sentence.

I think you guys are missing the real significance of the article in question. Didn’t you read the part that said “the frustration [the woman] had previously experienced disappeared” once she “picked up her manual and scriptures”? You can’t argue with results.

I think this is a great example of the problem members of the church run into when they attempt to straddle the gap between hard directions given by the brethren, and the idea that each member of the church should think for themselves and be led by the spirit. The article says “she knew [the manual's] source was valid. She knew it had been approved by the men called to lead the Lord’s work on the earth today and that it was what they wanted her to teach.” So there’s nothing the lord would have any SS or RS or Priesthood teacher in the world teach that isn’t found in the lesson manual or other approved church materials? How many times in my life have I heard a speaker, even GAs, change the topic of their talk at the pulpit, on the promptings of the spirit. Such promptings are not available to teachers in the church?

Thoughts?

This stinks! Let’s go back to the good ol’ days when old, crackpot Utahans can ramble on and on about any old crazy crap they once dreamt up or maybe heard their great-aunt say.
It was so much better when people could bring in their favorite books, like “Tuesdays With Maury” or books of their niece’s poetry, or show “Saturday’s Warrior.”

That’s *so* much better than being told to teach the doctrine of the church in the Gospel Doctrine class.

As much as the bloggernacle seems to belly-ache about sermonizing on (‘conservative’ political)/personal topics from the pulpit, you’d think they would be glad to have someone clamp down on (similar) sermonizing in the classroom by telling the teachers to just use the frakkin’ books.

#17 – I like this.

“The Church — through its inspired correlation program — has given us official sources of information to help us prepare lessons and plan activities. Instead of turning to unofficial books and Web sites, let’s use those sources.”

From a perspective of teaching in the church, I can see where they are coming from (kind of). The problem is that this message perpetuates the potential for mass and ongoing “Shaken Faith Syndrome” (for lack of a better way to describe it) for those who understand the church to be saying, “READ ONLY CHURCH APPROVED MATERIAL” (because that other pile of junk and lies about the church you’ll find on the internet, in books, and from non-LDS historians ain’t inspired, and are really tools of the devil).

Then, when you finally discover the historical and doctrinal issues not in the church approved material, you are criticized by FAIR and FARMS who ask “where have you been for the last 30 years?” “We’re not hiding anything!”

Bugs.

PS: The downside of the “everything you need is in the manual” approach was aptly summarized by John C. at BCC recently:

“We don’t teach the scriptures in Sunday School, we teach these streamlined doctrines supplemented by scriptural proof texts. Standardized lessons are great for emphasizing basic gospel messages, but at the expense of real experience living the gospel and interacting with the scriptures. If we can’t teach people how to live a gospel life without resorting to a series of platitudes and scriptural cliches, then all we are serving folks is fried froth. Like spiritual fast food, we are filling folks up on easy answers and spiritual mediocrity because it is fast, easy, and standardized. Instead, we should invite them to the table to feast with us on the real, wholesome, messy, tasty, pulpy, and savory word of God.”

“As if all inspiration and promptings come through correlation. God help us.”

Now that is tasteful irony.

My question is (and great comments btw) is when exactly is something an “other” item, and when is it just something out of my brain? Obviously we’re not supposed to just “read” the lesson to the class… which would take all of 5 minutes anyway. Obviously we still have to construct a lesson out of the material. When we’re constructing said lessons, it is inevitable that we would draw on things NOT (*gasp*) written verbatim in the manual.

I’m going to reframe this entire news release with noble intentions, and assume they actually mean they actually just want us to REALLY make sure we stick to the topic, and “keep the main thing the main thing,” as my MP used to say.

I actually think the church as an instution misplaces the emphasis. Its as if the idea is that there is this perfect content that bad teachers might mess up. Fear concerning the “bad” things that might happen in a teaching environment is a terrible starting place for a consideration of teaching or course content.

I think we should start by asking if we actually have teaching in the church at this point? What should teaching look like in the church? I am not seeing good answers to such questions coming from the institutional church. My feeling is that we don’t have teaching anymore, at least not in any meaningful sense.

In most contexts there is a connection between “teaching” and new knowledge, or a deeper understanding of what is already known. Official church materials are structured to work directly against both of these concepts so the question that I need answered as a teacher is: “If new knowledge, or more detail are not teaching, if reading and interpreting scripture in context is not teaching, if working with theology is not teaching,if class content that is spiritually and intellectually challenging (in the positive sense) is not teaching, THEN what are we supposed to be doing for 2 hours each Sunday?”

I subed for the teens a few weeks ago. they are a difficult group to work with, good and smart kids but they know very very little about the church, its history, interpretation of scripture, etc. They can recite doctrine though. Anyway, they tend to be difficult to engage in a discussion. So when I subbed, I brought up the topic of their silence, addressed it head on, and also told them that they are not the only one’s for whom silence is an issue. One of the first things that was mentioned is that they have had the same lessons over and over again for their entire lives, thus all the questions and all the answers are already known. Their silence is a LEARNED silence, They are silent because they have learned that they don’t need to speak, because the only speech act they believe they are capable of is to repeat what has already been said! To me that is an outrage! And this is not a criticism of the kids or their teachers. It a criticism of a education system that has tautology as its ultimate structural goal. If correlation is inspired why doesn’t it bear better fruit?

As a church, I think we are seriously confused.

There are very rigid churches like the JWs. They publish a lot of material, have a very rigid set of doctrine, and expect people to stick to the material in their manuals.
There are flexible churches. I’d guess that most protestant churches allow a good bit of freedom both in belief and in what is taught.

We are just confused. We claim to have great truths that the world needs and then publish manuals that have almost no content and then expect teachers and students to limit themselves to these manuals in their classes. We claim to have living prophets and apostles, but technically aren’t supposed to use their books or sermons in lessons.

Its actually very difficult for members to know what it is that the church actually teaches. Pick almost any issue or doctrine–you’ll find active members on both sides of the issue. In many cases, there are quotes by church leaders supporting each opposing position. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing–but it is inconsistent with our claim that we have some great truths to teach the world. We claim to have so much and then we seem to deliver so very little.

#31 We are confused–

The major purpose of the church is to teach the Doctrine of Christ so that those who have been baptized can fulfill their baptism covenant and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. All other considerations are a subset of this. When members enjoy this gift confusion isn’t a big issue, without it confusion is an issue.

This post reminded me of a past post:

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/10/26/de-centralising-the-spirit-between-charisma-and-bureaucracy/

I really don’t like this idea of teaching inspiration coming only from the Brethren and no one else.

Another thought. How many children do you know that would go to their mother and bear their testimony that they “know the correlation committee and it’s products/manuals are true” and inspired. The mother then has an epiphany and puts casts off the “books” and “outside sources” that were tempting her to fact checking, research, and independent thought. Right! So was that “story” true/authentic or fictional? Regardless, once this touching story and the Footprint Poem that are mentioned in an official medium (Church News) are they now no longer “outside” resources and, therefore, acceptable to use without fear?

#42, Ron:

You sort of beat me to it. I was just wondering what Orwell would have had to say about this article.

#34 -”I know I felt that way as a child/teen, but I also feel like that now in my adult classes, so I think some of it has to do with teacher development–I’d love to see the Teacher Development manual amended to address this issue of how to balance what this post is discussing.”

I think many people feel that way in their adult classes, that is the next step in the analysis to be sure. I just used the youth example because it was a personal experience that happened within the last six weeks and because I am so saddened by bright young mind / spirits that at the age of 17 have already learned to expect very little from church.

I agree with your point about the teacher development materials, but I see the same problems / emphasis in those materials as I do in the class materials. I’m in the Sunday School presidency in my ward and we are starting to do teacher development, Its a real struggle since there is so little substance in the teacher development materials.

I don’t think we can have meaningful teacher development or teaching until the institution actually begins to trust the teachers in the church. Then we might be able to do some teacher development.

I guess this article means they’ll be closing Deseret Book down now. People may be *tempted* to use material from non-correlated books sold there.

Or maybe (I hope, I hope), by cutting lessons in the manual to bare bones and insisting that we can only use that thin outline, the Correlation Committee is pushing the Church in general to cut Priesthood/Relief Society and Sunday School to only about a half an hour each. As mentioned above, if the lesson goes on much longer than that, classess start filling the time with non-correlated comments.

Whoops, hit submit too early. Was going to say that the Primary manual is already like that, supplying “correct” answers to the questions. Now granted, I’m not complaining–not only is Primary intended for young children, but there really aren’t a lot of other answers to the question “Does it please Heavenly Father when you do you chores?” than the correct one.

But I can easily this principle being applied someday in the adult Sunday School manual. If we’re going to have a catechism or a strict doxology, let’s just go ahead and call it that.

#32 and #35,
I agree wholeheartedly with HeidiAnn and disagree with BoredinVernal.

I feel that General Authorities would not object to basing a lesson doctrinally on the materials in the manual and drawing on compelling experiences from others from books, the internet, and life, to make the doctrine applicable to class members.

I believe the Church is trying to get us to teach the principles and doctrines in the manuals, not necessarily ask the questions and tell the stories in the manuals. Also, I believe the Church is trying to get us to avoid introducing principles from outside the lessons in the manual that we believe are good, lest those we teach believe those principles to be doctrine.

#50: “Look, when you’re taught American history in your schools, what are the stories they tell you? Do they start by “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” or similar stories about the Europeans’ uncivil, untrustworthy and downright racist genocide ideas. How many peace treaties were discarded like used toilet paper, when more land was wanted from the Natives’ areas?”

Would to God the schools taught anything but that.

It isn’t 1954 anymore. The average schoolteacher these days came out of an educational establishment that marinates them in the notion that America is a uniquely racist and oppressive civilization. I guarantee you that for every ten school kids who know about Wounded Knee and Sand Creek, there isn’t one who knows Fort Mims or the Minnesota Uprising. That’s the reason we get grossly inaccurate descriptions of European-Americans’ dealings with the Indians as “genocidal.”

#53 – Where are you suggesting the article may have come from?

#58 – Thanks for volunteering, Hawk.

Mike S.

I don’t see how anything I teach is outside of what Elder Oaks suggests. I don’t choose the topics or subjects for the sunday lesson. Those are chosen for me.

Last Sunday, for instance, the title of the lesson was “Who we are” (or something like that). The gist of the lesson was that we were children of god and what that meant. I taught those principles in a completely different way as suggested by the manual. I bore my testimony, the spirit was there. Amen.

How is that flauting Oaks’ statement?

This week I know that my lesson is on the Nature of God. I will take any good suggestions the manuals have, use some of their sources, but mold and adapt the message for my young men.

I don’t see myself as being a rebel, just as someone who is trying to magnify a calling in the church and have the spirit present when i teach my youth.

am i wrong?

Here’s the quote from the Gospel Principles manual (of which I am teaching this coming week.)

“If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using this book, do not substitute outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words in the book. As appropriate, use personal experiences and articles from Church magazines to supplement the lessons.

The personal experiences is a bit of a wildcard, but I feel pretty handcuffed if I must stick to only the manual and Church magazines–unless we can bring in FARMS, FAIR (which aren’t my favorite sources, but they do reference some of the other things I might find interesting.) I taught the Eyring lesson a few weeks ago. I downloaded his talk and played it on my laptop for the class. Now I’m beginning to wish I could teach that once/month instead of this.

I can appreciate the fact that the Church wants to protect its message, but I am puzzled that a Church restored in the latter days, equipped with Priesthood and revelation, feels that it’s message per history must be strained through an institutional colander. In short why have they limited the scope of accepted material to the teachings of Modern Prophets and the scriptures? I could understand that request. I could even appreciate a press release which suggested that before materials be used in class, that a teacher has thoroughly studied the source to make sure it is official. They could say something like:

“while we encourage members to search the words of the Prophets, we have noticed at times in a zealous effort to promulgate an intriguing notion, members have falsely attributed quotes obtained from hearsay or simple internet searches to modern Prophets. We encourage all members to seek an official trusted source before relaying any quote or teaching to class members in a Sunday School setting. Doing so will promote integrity of doctrine, and contribute greatly to gospel learning.”

I guess the point is, what they call “outside sources”, I tend to think is former generation Mormon teachings. I recognize that at times when studying the OT for example, teachers have at times given a lesson from ecumenical sources that have had protestant undertones which conflict with LDS core doctrine. Even so, I think the greater tendency is for members to search the internet for Church history and come across a version of history that the Church has tried to forget. For example if someone were teaching a lesson on Celestial Marriage and were to come across some quotes from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or others, which was more overt on Polygamy, “correlation” begins to shudder. This is evidenced in the way all such things have been extricated from the “inside” publications. So in short, this article almost sounds like the Church is conceding no confidence in Prophets. It will never be acknowledged in this way, but really that is how it sounds. I have found it very peculiar that along with the practice of polygamy, so has the doctrine become a thing of the past. In the Joseph Smith manual from a few years ago, there was a blurb on the inside jacket that said something to the effect of “all references to polygamy in the quotes from this book have been removed, as since 1891 through revelation, the Church has discontinued that practice”. Sure we stopped the practice because as Wilford Woodruff said, the Church property would have been seized and the Quorumn of the Twelve imprisoned. Yet, does that mean it is no longer part of the fabric Eternity? Do we no longer believe that? And if so, am I to believe that God has litterally altered the nature of marriage in both heaven and earth in order to appease the U.S. government?

#42, 43

I have to admit that there is something disconcerting about the similarities between oversimplified, unsubstantive drivel supplied from the correlated manuals, and Newspeak from “1984″.

I think it ridiculous to criticize the church. It is hypocritical for one to sustain the leaders of the church on one hand and then use the other to write in opposition to them. There are plenty of references and doctrine in the manuals provided by the church to provide a heartfelt and edifying discussion. I have never seen a need to expand the lesson material beyond the scope of church provided and approved lesson manuals. I think doing so leads to speculations. Every time I see a stray from the lesson manual it almost always produces the same result: tangents and contention.

Good for you, Celestial. Good for you. Can you explain the contradiction that, as members of the church, we are expected to never quote from a non-authorized source in church talks or lessons, and yet every six months in general conference, our leaders freely quote from poets, novelists, secular magazines and newspapers, and other sources? Obviously, if I teach a lesson and invent my own theology and present it as inspired, I’m not doing my job. But if during the discussion of a point I find a particularly moving story or quote from, say, Mother Theresa or C. S. Lewis (both quoted in general conference), do I really need to ask permission from church leaders? Will such quotes harm the faith of my fellow ward members? “Straying from a lesson” can indeed produce contention, which is not usually helpful, but I don’t see the problem with tangents as long as they are not the sole focus of the lesson. My life experience is nothing but tangents, and if I can’t explore those in a supportive religious environment I believe I’m being unnecessarily shackled. In a church where every member is assumed to learn how the Holy Spirit guides, why would we prevent each other from seeking inspiration in presenting a lesson?

I’m kind of surprised I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. I wonder how much of this is due to the fact we’ve lost a lot of GD teachers over the years after they started doing research to supplement their lesson plans. Tal Bachmann is probably the most famous example, but in my area we’ve had two GD teachers go inactive over a five year period.

“pondering scriptures led to removal of polygamy”

???

To me this sums it up:

“The following is an excerpt from a talk delivered by Elder Bruce R. McConkie to the Church Sunday School Department in 1977. The entire excerpt is a direct quotation.
In all our teaching we represent the Lord and are appointed to teach His gospel. We are the Lord’s agents, and as such we are empowered to say only those things which He wants said.

Agents represent their principal. They have no power of their own. They act in someone else’s name. They do what they are told to do. They say what they are authorized to say—nothing more, nothing less.

We are the Lord’s agents. We represent Him. “As ye are agents,” He says, “ye are on the Lord’s errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord’s business” (D&C 64:29).

Our business as teachers is to teach His doctrine and none other. There is no other course we can follow if we are to save souls. We have no saving power of our own. We cannot create a law or a doctrine that will redeem or resurrect or save another person. The Lord only can do these things, and we are appointed to teach what He reveals on these and all gospel doctrines.”

Source: Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching

I don’t know about you but I don’t mess with things like this. If the Lord, through his chosen servants, wants me to stick to a lesson manual to teach His gospel, then I will stick to a lesson manual. It is really that simple. Again, it’s His gospel. Not mine. Emphasis on “His.”

#81 – I appreciate your position, Celestial, and within the context of the church, I don’t think you’re wrong. That said, I think this is a decent example of why the church has a reputation for exercising thought control over its members. It’s not just that the church has commanded the members to only use correlated material. It’s the idea that “the lord, through his chosen servants, wants [you] to stick to a lesson manual.” The prophets speak, and you are left with the choice of either obeying “the lord” or using your own judgment to determine the best course to meet your gospel responsibilities. The point is, the lord’s way, at least in this instance, does not allow for much individual judgment or reasoning. If you’re convinced that such messages truly are coming straight from god, then there’s no problem. But if you believe these messages come from other human beings, as most people in the world do, then the pattern is problematic, and a little disturbing.

In one example to a couple of missionaries the Lord taught this principle: “And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way, saying none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.” (D&C 52:9) I think a commonly misunderstood principle is recognizing the spirit teaching you something through a prayer of faith. I don’t think it’s a question whether or not the prophet or apostles can stray from a lesson manual. They have the keys of the kingdom and are authorized by the Lord himself to do so. I, on the other hand, walk a fine line between what my own voice can say verses what the Lord wants me to say as prescribed by his authorized servants. I can pray and ask the Lord for guidance about how to present the lesson (approved by authorized servants) in an edifying manner. Here, in faith, is where the spirit will enlighten me. I know the Lord doesn’t want us to read the manual word for word to the class. This would take the entire class time in some cases just reading. Reading parts and allowing for discussion is more appropriate. Reading referenced scripture is excellent and allowing for discussion is even better. You might not get through the entire lesson, but if planned well you can teach the main points of the lesson. Good preparation on the part of the teacher is necessary to accomplish this.

All things must be done in order…the church teachings that have standards to teach by are a great blessing to me that I can go anywhere and hear the same things being taught. Correlation is a great blessing, even if it comes at some cost.

There are many times I am bored with the lessons and wish for deeper teachings (sometimes even speculation to make things interesting for me) – but what I would want does not mean that is what the church leaders want in the classroom experience for all involved.

I think it is a far stretch to equate “A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified” with “Satan’s plan to take away free agency”. The teacher should teach the curriculum with his/her own talents so that all may be edified, and use free agency to study the tenets of the gospel on his/her own time.

Cowboy, there is certainly value to your position. Look at how the missionary program has moved to finding it of greater value to teach by the spirit, rather than a memorized flanel board presentation. I think accepting diversity and challenging people to think is what class should be about.

However, there is a limit where the topics and materials to draw from should be correlated so there is order.

I don’t think the message is “Only teach this tidy message” but instead, it is “Don’t reinvent the wheel. Lesson material is already provided, make use of that rather than finding material from unapproved sources.”

Sometimes I think people try to complicate their callings too much, when it can be kept simple and straight forward, and focus on teaching with the spirit rather than trying to be a teacher that can find some material no one has heard of before.

Mormon Heretic,

I guess I consider the milk, meat and maybe that is the difference here. I still get a lot out of the so called basics. Sorry if I am holding you all back and maybe the Lord is waiting on folks like me to progress. Who knows! I have read the BOM, it seems, a billion plus times but I still get constant nourishment out of it and I still learn new things. I look forward to the lessons on Sunday and each time the spirit teaches me new and exciting things. I have many weaknesses and need a constant reminder of who I am and that I have the power to overcome my challenges in life. I feel these lessons are designed for people like me.

Mormon Heretic,

You posted about agency and a double standard. I guess I look at that different too. Satan wanted glory unto himself and did things his own way to, in his mind, to exalt himself above God. I don’t see a similarity between what Satan wanted to do and how the Lord set up His church through the system of revelation and the foundation of apostles and prophets. I guess when you truly know that Jesus is the head of this church and His apostles are truly called of Him you will look at this in an entirely new light. I know that they are true servants of the Lord. It is the Lord’s way to give these men authority to act in His name on earth. They truly receive revelation from Him to lead and guide His church on earth. I take what they say as if the Lord himself said it. I truly believe that when it is all said and done we will know that this church was entirely lead by the Savior himself. Does that make the apostles blind agents who have no choice? No! Satan has no agency. Agency is truly the ability to progress or move forward in greater degrees of righteousness and light. Satan literally cannot do this. He is unable to change. He is unable to forget. His memories are perfect and his state is forever set. Without agency we would never be able to progress or have children. Adam fell that men may be and men are that they might have joy. This is why Satan’s plan would have never worked. Without agency, how would Adam have progressed beyond the garden? Without agency, how would they have ever had children. They would have never moved forward at all in their progression. We would have never been born. The Lord is trying to teach us that by following His strict commands in perfect obedience gives us the gift of being a free agent. We are not bound to unchangeability. We can create, love, move forward and help others along the way. Satan can do none of those things. Those who wish to follow him will have a similar fate in various degrees.

Nicely said Cowboy.

“I don’t know about you but I don’t mess with things like this. If the Lord, through his chosen servants, wants me to stick to a lesson manual to teach His gospel, then I will stick to a lesson manual. It is really that simple. Again, it’s His gospel. Not mine. Emphasis on “His.””

This is another example of how we so perfectly miss the point. His gospel is his, but it is not a reductionist gospel, nor is it a formula, nor is it a simple method, or program. Its structure eludes us every time we try to describe it. Thus we need to bring everything we can, or everything that is necessary to teaching it.

I do not often use materials other than the manual to teach a class, but I will never limit myself to the manual in preparing to teach the class. As a teacher it is a necessity that I bring my very best knowledge, theology, intrepretation, prayer, insight, historical understanding, etc. etc. etc. to the lesson. This REQUIRES using outside sources: from different translations of the texts, to examining issues in comparative religion, to reading philosophical texts that with unique religious insights, to knowing something about the cultures that produced the texts we use as scriptures, to knowing when the manuals contain mistakes, or contain obvious revisionist history, OR knowing when the manuals make radical and compelling claims that are treated as bland and run of the mill. In fact one of the problems I often see with the manuals is that they are so willing to take radical and challenging aspects of our religion and present them as assumptions to be glossed over, assumed and quickly forgoten.

Anyway, how all the above elements interact can’t be predicted ahead of time. It all depends upon the needs of the people in the class, the inspiration that the instructor gets, and the content of the lesson. Myself, One week I may lean heavily upon the work of Levinas in preping a lesson. Another week, I may be equally dependent upon just a few lines of scripture. Another week I may need to focus closely on a section of text from the manual. The goal of creating a lesson that makes the gosple new and wonderful and that meets the needs of the people in the class remains constant. The one thing I refuse to do though, is to pretend that simplistic formulas, or terrible questions, or revisionist history, or proof texting, are inspired. They aren’t, and by definition can’t be.

I think this has a lot to do with why such huge numbers of youth and converts leave the church. They want to grow spiritually but can’t find a way to do it in the face of a religious education defined largely by repetition and scholasticism.

Only two types of people can survive in such an environment. Those who(for what ever reasons good or bad) don’t really need or want to learn and so are satisfied with the status quo; and those who (for what ever reasons good or bad)must learn and find ways to do it on their own.

Exceptional teaching is a powerful answer to the spiritual challenges faced by both groups.