“The new manual is an upgrade, mostly because the topic is a return to basic gospel principles. Perhaps this admonishment from the correlation committee wouldn’t be necessary if last year’s manual hadn’t created a problem with its shoddy methods. If this is intended to be a great improvement on that, I applaud it. But I would hope that the committee has learned a valuable lesson about the poor tactics of yesterday. I’m not sure there’s much basis for that hope, but I’ll try to hang onto it anyway.
”

Yea the JS manual was pretty tricky to work with, I think a lot of folks were frustrated by it. What I think is interesting though is that the new manual is so slim and so basic, I can’t help but see it as an invitation to teachers to really apply themselves to the lessons in a way that has not been encouraged in the past, and to draw on outside materials of many sorts since there is so little content in the lessons. Yet we have the statements in the OP. So the tension continues.

You raise a good point: what has the committee learned, what are they thinking? They are sort of a black box. I wish the church was more open and there could actually be a broad based dialogue on teaching that wasn’t centered on these strange mandates from on high. Debating these mandates makes it harder to get out of the starting blocks with lessons. Teaching is so important and yet its handled in this very strange way. I’ll try to hold on to hope as well.

Your comment about the false misunderstanding that convert/new member, most often = spiritual immaturity. While new converts are often (but certainly not always) less versed in Mormon doctrine, history, and literature, I think it is unfair to suggest that they would be unable to “handle it”. You’re right on the money. I do know a few recently activated people in my ward who are pretty illiterate when it comes to Mormon history and doctrine, but there are other new members who know the doctrines quite well and can handle polygamy and the priesthood ban quite well. We seem to focus only on individuals who need to know the so-called basics, and all others must just suffer through these same basic lessons year after year.

I fear that in their attempt to put the Wasatch Front stamp of approval on everything in a mass-produced and correlated Church, it is instead going to be like a watermelon seed or a bar of soap – it is necessary to keep a relatively firm grip to keep either one in your hand, but if you squeeze too hard, it will shoot out. Perhaps it’s emblematic of my own failings, but having been a life-long member, married in the temple, having served a mission and in a number of callings, etc., it’s getting to the point where the Church is getting in the way of the Gospel in my life. I’m considering more and more refocusing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and ignoring the Church’s multiplying rules.

“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.

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.

I think this whole notion smacks of pre-Martin Luther Era mentality that suggested “common” people were too crude vessels to be given access to the scriptures. I have read some articles recently that suggest part of the appeal to Mormonism was the idea of personal revelation to the common man. In short, previous traditions placed great emphasis on clergy for interpreting scripture, and declaring doctrine. To counter, Joseph Smith taught the idea of a personal God, even corporal in the form of man, a father in whom each member could approach in the spirit of revelation to recieve the keys to tge mysteries. Now, we have come full circle. Once again man is too mean and vulgar to embark upon self discovery and proselytizing. No, we must rely upon the clergy to spoon feed us immature parishoners, and to protect us as children from the religious fire that will can only due harm in our childish hands. Suffice it to say, history ill regards the dark ages, and this position on religion is all too similar.

As a second point I sense a common but false misunderstanding that convert/new member, most often = spiritual immaturity. While new converts are often (but certainly not always) less versed in Mormon doctrine, history, and literature, I think it is unfair to suggest that they would be unable to “handle it”. I find very perplexing in fact, that there is a common thinking that information which would cause a person who is considered rational and mature enough to be baptized, to question their faith, is some how indicative of yet “spiritual immaturity” none the less. If they are too immature to appreciate polygamy or the Priesthood ban, for example, perhaps their baptism should be postponed until they are spiritual enough to accept “Gods ways”.

Lastly, to echo sentiments already mentioned, milk before meat implies a progression towards meat. I find it interesting that it was the Savior who coined this phrase, and spent his entire ministry gathering spiritual infants and then progressing them to succeed him after his mortal phase was to be completed. In short, to argue milk before meat is only valid if there is a plan to get the child off the breast, and at the dinner table. I see it more as a convenient put off and nothing more.

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.

I think the same principle applies to correlated lessons. What I get from these correlation quotes is that they don’t feel we can operate a vehicle, and treat us as if we are closer to age 10-12. Of course, the church has to worry about new members, recently activated members, etc, who probably do have the spiritual maturity of a 10-12 year old. These lessons are great for them. But to treat all members this way is irritating. There needs to be a way to talk about other topics. If the church refuses to provide an acceptable forum for this and continually focuses on the need to return to basics, they are ignoring all the 16-21 year olds. Pretty soon, we turn to the bloggernacle, historians, or anti-mormon sites because we’re tired of the 10-12 year old lessons. Sure, they have value, but please. It’s like eating the same 4 meals–surely there must be some way to add a few spices to the meal to change things up. Yes, bananas are good to eat, but not every meal!

There is a constant “milk before meat” mentality among the leadership. Well, when can we actually talk about meat? Apparently the church is only for spiritual vegetarians, because meat is considered “speculation”.

Am I the only one who has noticed that many people chat in the halls because they lessons are so boring? Is my ward the only one with bad teachers?

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.

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.

before we were born, there were 2 plans presented. jesus wanted to give free agency, knowing we woulf grow and fail. satan wanted to take away free agency to force all to be good. this message from the correlation committee sounds like the latter, not the former. don’t you agree? could you answer my question about the double standard of ga’s not practicing what they preach?

paul told us to ‘covet to prophesy’, and joseph smith said we all can get revelation. apparently the correlation committee feels otherwise. I think these quotes from the correlation committee harm spiritual maturity. jesus wanted us to be free to make mistakes and learn from them. but the correlation committee seems to want to prevent mistakes. I understand (and agree to an extent) the correlation committee’s concerns but I think such statements are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and have some undesirable results as well: spiritual maturity is stifled and pondering scriptures is discouraged for fear that people like sterling mcmurrin are speculating too much. while that can be the case, in hindsight, such speculation was entirely appropriate and confirmed by the 1978 revelation.

Pres Kimball used to quote from Les Miserables. Pres Monson gave a talk referencing the movie Home Alone. Such references would be unauthorized if a Sunday School Teacher used them. How is personal revelation compatible with following the manual? It does seem that some of our leaders don’t practice what they preach if we can only use church magazines and scriptures, doesn’t it?

“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.”

“I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I’m sure Woodruff wasn’t the first Mormon man to advocate the principles of the Manifesto. Certainly there must have been others who advocated issuing the Manifesto much sooner.

As for the priesthood ban, it was people like Sterling McMurrin (1950′s) and Newel Bringhurst (early 70′s) who studied the scriptures and came to “speculative” conclusions that the ban was not doctrinal. McMurrin brought it to Pres McKay’s attention, and Bringhurst wrote the famous Dialogue article. Are we to assume that such “speculation” was inappropriate? It sure seems like history comes down on the side of these 2 men, who were decades ahead of the 1978 revelation. I note that McMurrin brought “conflict” into his Sunday School class, yet Pres McKay said if any trouble were to come to McMurrin, Mckay would come to his aid if he found himself in trouble. If only we all had a prophet to back us up when we bring such conflict to Sunday School… (See my post on the Priesthood Ban if you aren’t familiar with this story.)

???

one other thing I want to bring up. wasn’t enos ‘struggling in prayer’ and jacob’s wrestle with the lord a form of ‘contention’? not all of these struggles are bad and I think many can be productive. pondering scriptures led to removal of polygamy, joseph f smith’s revelation on Christ’s visit to the spirit world, and the lifting of the priesthood ban. are such episodes of pondering scriptures only reserved for prophets?