Spencer W. Kimball Lessons

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You make light of another's desire to understand subjects more deeply, but aren't you ever curious or are you satisfied with the Primary level answers provided to you in the manuals?

Mind you, I loved Primary, as you got food, you got to sing simple songs and the kids laughed and played. No rumor mongering, one lost ward politics and you lived in your own little world, but in the supposed adult world, are you satisfied with that?

If I have to choose between your characterization of the Teachings of the Prophets manuals as "Primary level" and Elder Oaks' as "rich and relevant ... [and] superb," I'm going with Oaks, sorry.

More importantly, I seem to remember this little talk by Maxwell (extolled by you of all people) that the gospel was about doing and becoming and not as much about knowing. He also said we have too many homes where the man is the scholar and the woman is the Christian.

Draw from that whatever conclusions you wish, but until we have Elders Quorums full of pornography-free, spouse loyal, patient, even-tempered, temple recommend holding, 100%-home-teaching brethren, I don't think linking in a few FARMS articles is going to bring the group closer to God.

Just my opinion.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I seem to remember this little talk by Maxwell (extolled by you of all people) that the gospel was about doing and becoming and not as much about knowing.

I've expressed this sentiment several times here, but not with much agreement from others.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No easy solution to these problems, particularly if you want to maintain uniformity among all wards/branches. The standard manuals are excellent for maintaining uniformity, not excellent at all for having a profound discussion on most topics.

If the Gospel is about doing rather than knowing, why have a Group meeting? If we are to discuss nothing of interest and to do it in a boring fashion, why have those priesthood meetings at all except to make announcements? Why not release us early to do?

It seems the discussion about lessons, which is about knowing, got sidetracked about doing. Which is fine.

Yet, doing without knowing can be equally as meaningless.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yet, doing without knowing can be equally as meaningless.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think your last sentence hits on it. It is hard to "do" unless you know what you are supposed to do, and it is made all the easier by knowing why you are doing it.

It's hard for me to tell via the web if you two are being facetious or not, but I'm reading a little bit of exaggeration here. Obviously obtaining knowledge, especially gospel knowledge, is very important to "doing" and "becoming." It's the nature of the knowledge being obtained that's in dispute.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Problem: Many find EQ boring because of the Sunday school questions/answers and they want something deeper (like what USED to be taught even 20 years ago).
...
No easy solution to these problems, particularly if you want to maintain uniformity among all wards/branches. The standard manuals are excellent for maintaining uniformity, not excellent at all for having a profound discussion on most topics.

Originally Posted by Archaea

If the Gospel is about doing rather than knowing, why have a Group meeting? If we are to discuss nothing of interest and to do it in a boring fashion, why have those priesthood meetings at all except to make announcements?

I could insert a wholly gratuitous joke about spiritual A.D.D. here, but I'll forbear. Oops, too late.

I suppose if you're finding church boring--any of church, not just EQ lessons--may I gently suggest there might be something you could do differently, rather than the church's curriculum be redesigned to fit your tastes?

Knowledge is wonderful to have, but again, it's the nature of the knowledge we're debating. Little of what you're advocating has much to do with salvation. I'd wager to say that a man can be saved without reading a single page of a FARMS publication, but he'd have a devil of a time getting there without reading a page of the scriptures. The manuals, supplements to the scriptures, are words of actual prophets--revelatory in nature, if not canonized. There's more than enough information there to keep you busy on your post-doctoral salvation efforts for quite some time.

That's not to say these other things can't be quite interesting and illuminating. Surely there is truth in many places outside the scriptures, even inspired truth. But it doesn't necessarily belong in an LDS theological classroom.

Put another way: "When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room ... but when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee" (Luke 14:8-10).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's hard for me to tell via the web if you two are being facetious or not, but I'm reading a little bit of exaggeration here. Obviously obtaining knowledge, especially gospel knowledge, is very important to "doing" and "becoming." It's the nature of the knowledge being obtained that's in dispute.




I could insert a wholly gratuitous joke about spiritual A.D.D. here, but I'll forbear. Oops, too late.

I suppose if you're finding church boring--any of church, not just EQ lessons--may I gently suggest there might be something you could do differently, rather than the church's curriculum be redesigned to fit your tastes?

Knowledge is wonderful to have, but again, it's the nature of the knowledge we're debating. Little of what you're advocating has much to do with salvation. I'd wager to say that a man can be saved without reading a single page of a FARMS publication, but he'd have a devil of a time getting there without reading a page of the scriptures. The manuals, supplements to the scriptures, are words of actual prophets--revelatory in nature, if not canonized. There's more than enough information there to keep you busy on your post-doctoral salvation efforts for quite some time.

That's not to say these other things can't be quite interesting and illuminating. Surely there is truth in many places outside the scriptures, even inspired truth. But it doesn't necessarily belong in an LDS theological classroom.

Put another way: "When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room ... but when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee" (Luke 14:8-10).

I don't believe you understand that scripture if you apply it to this discussion. We are not assuming a place of honor. I for one would be happy never to have another demanding calling again. We labor and discuss matters of import to us.

Church culture is not perfect and in the swing of things, some groups will be left out from time to time. Right now, the culture does not address adult singles very well, and intellectually, it doesn't do much to stimulate the learning of long time members. There's plenty of work, but after you've been through the cycle a few times, it's difficult to remain as enthused as you could the first cycle. The good thing about recycled positions is you can be more efficient. Apparently, you can't see where we're dropping the ball.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I suppose if you're finding church boring--any of church, not just EQ lessons--may I gently suggest there might be something you could do differently, rather than the church's curriculum be redesigned to fit your tastes?

This is about as condescending and self-righteous as you can get. And you wonder why your opinions here are not met with enthusiastic acceptance. To me, this statement epitomizes the Tex way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Tex

Knowledge is wonderful to have, but again, it's the nature of the knowledge we're debating. Little of what you're advocating has much to do with salvation. I'd wager to say that a man can be saved without reading a single page of a FARMS publication, but he'd have a devil of a time getting there without reading a page of the scriptures.

And there you go again. So you are assuming that those who are looking to other sources are not reading the scriptures. In other words, if you're not getting enough from the scriptures to the point that you need additional resources, perhaps you're not reading and pondering the scriptures enough, right?

One could say, in that same vein, that you, yourself, seem to be quite informed regarding politics and curent events. Perhaps your time could be better spent in studying and pondering the scriptures? Or do you already know enough of the scriptures that your salvation is assured?

If readings ABOUT the scriptures are peripheral to our salvation, and therefore not worthy of discussion, how much more so are the conservative blogs?

Originally Posted by Tex

The manuals, supplements to the scriptures, are words of actual prophets--revelatory in nature, if not canonized. There's more than enough information there to keep you busy on your post-doctoral salvation efforts for quite some time.

That's not to say these other things can't be quite interesting and illuminating. Surely there is truth in many places outside the scriptures, even inspired truth. But it doesn't necessarily belong in an LDS theological classroom.

To me, this is your most salient point, and you could have done without all the condescending crap you included before.

But isn't the manual supposed to be a starting point for discussion? What good is discussion if everyone has the same, primary-level understanding of the principles?

Why not strive for a lesson which causes someone to go home feeling like they've looked at the same old principles in a little different light, or in a little different context?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe you understand that scripture if you apply it to this discussion. We are not assuming a place of honor. I for one would be happy never to have another demanding calling again. We labor and discuss matters of import to us.

I think the concept can be applied to supposed "Primary-level" lessons curricula.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Church culture is not perfect and in the swing of things, some groups will be left out from time to time. Right now, the culture does not address adult singles very well, and intellectually, it doesn't do much to stimulate the learning of long time members. There's plenty of work, but after you've been through the cycle a few times, it's difficult to remain as enthused as you could the first cycle. The good thing about recycled positions is you can be more efficient. Apparently, you can't see where we're dropping the ball.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

This is about as condescending and self-righteous as you can get. And you wonder why your opinions here are not met with enthusiastic acceptance. To me, this statement epitomizes the Tex way of thinking.

There is no condescension. I was very non-confrontationally suggesting that a change of approach might be in order. If what Arch says is true, it is impressive, is it not, that President Kimball could remain "stimulated" week in and week out?

Per General Sunday School President, Roger Merrill:

Someone once asked President Spencer W. Kimball, "What do you do if you find yourself caught in a boring sacrament meeting?" President Kimball thought a moment, then replied, "I don't know; I've never been in one" (in Gene R. Cook, Teaching by the Spirit [2000], 140).

http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5950-1,00.html

I mean no disrespect, Arch, but if Kimball can remain intellectually interested, so can just about anybody.

SoCal, may I suggest to you that you're looking for offense in my posts where none is intended? I'm beginning to think you'd call me "condescending" even were I to warn you that your fly is open.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

And there you go again. So you are assuming that those who are looking to other sources are not reading the scriptures. In other words, if you're not getting enough from the scriptures to the point that you need additional resources, perhaps you're not reading and pondering the scriptures enough, right?

No, I'm not assuming that. You are.

For personal study, I think someone can have broad license to study whatever materials one wishes. Much of it can be enlightening and illuminating.

But when it comes to a church lesson, there's no reason to go far beyond the curriculum. Rare is the Sunday School or Elders Quorum class that I've been to that the teacher covers all the material in the lesson itself, much less covering things outside. And that's really saying something, given that the lesson material itself is only a small subset of the scriptures and prophetic statements/writings themselves.

I see no need to expand beyond that in an effort to excite the sense of people who mistakenly believe they've already mastered the topics. Startling, is it not, that someone could return to the temple week over week, or month over month, for decades ... partaking of the same ordinances and still come away saying they learned something new? I don't have the quote handy, but I believe that's an accurate paraphrasal of something Joseph Fielding Smith once said.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

But isn't the manual supposed to be a starting point for discussion? What good is discussion if everyone has the same, primary-level understanding of the principles?

Why not strive for a lesson which causes someone to go home feeling like they've looked at the same old principles in a little different light, or in a little different context?

I guess what I'm disputing is the idea that the curriculum lessons are good only for "primary-level" discussions, and I think the quote I twice posted by Elder Oaks confirms that. I see nothing wrong with your second question. It's just that I think such a striving is possible within the bounds of what has been set forth.

Let me add parenthetically, lest I be improperly represented here: I see nothing wrong with innovation. In fact, I believe six months ago Elder Ballard encouraged it. There's nothing wrong with props, object lessons, maps, explanations of customs (particularly when studying the Bible), and so forth. There is something to be said for a fresh approach to eternal principles. But it should be used judiciously, and not to supplant the lesson itself.

[Archaea]

Do you really believe SWK never attended a boring Sacrament Meeting, or was he just using it as an object lesson? I believe the latter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you really believe SWK never attended a boring Sacrament Meeting, or was he just using it as an object lesson? I believe the latter.

It's kinda getting surreal when everytime I post a prophetic statement or a scripture, someone says, "Do you really think they actually meant that?"

Whether Kimball was taking a little hyperbolic license isn't for me to say. Either way, I think you missed his point.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you really believe SWK never attended a boring Sacrament Meeting, or was he just using it as an object lesson? I believe the latter.

You and fus. Nothing is ever literal, is it?