This year, Relief Society and Melchizedek Priesthood classes and quorums are studying the revised Gospel Principles book. The Church would like your comments about your experience as a student in these classes in January. Please answer a few brief questions to help them develop effective Church curriculum.
RSS
{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
If an 8 year old child can answer the question, then the question (and the manual from whence it comes) is not appropriate for seasoned adults. Are you purposely trying to drive people away from PR/RS attendance with this quite boring material?
It’s boring and pointless. Stop treating members like they are children and allow them to study the gospel in its fullness.
Our RS teachers have done a great job and everyone has really loved the lessons, they are reading ahead and bringing in thoughtful comments about the principles and their effect in our lives. We have discovered greater depths and yes, the fullness of the gospel – in these basics.We were lucky to have teachers who were excited about the possibilities and some stake training. Unfortunately, the priesthood teachers don’t have the same training or do the same preparation, such as developing questions that are suitable for your class’ level of experience.
So what would people do if Christ, himself, entered the classroom and began teaching the content of the manual?
Christ didn’t teach to be pleasing unto men, and he didn’t teach to stimulate or stroke the intellectual pride of his listeners. He taught what the people needed to hear.
So, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
This is just another attempt to counter the slow but steady decline of the church. Baptisms are down. Convert retention is down. The number of TR holders is down. Tithing dollars and percentage of members paying tithing is down. Temple attendance is down. About 40% of young adult fall away. Nearly have of RMs become inactive within 2 years of returning home. Church leaders are frantic trying to push a reset button to bring activity levels up, activate member missionary efforts, and ultimately increase tithing payments. The hope is that a review of basic doctrines will soften members’ hearts and bring about desired change. I don’t think this has a chance of succeeding. If we go too far mainstream, we might as well join a mega-church – at least services are not 3 hours long.
See further discussion at:
http://newordermormon.org/
The reason the manual is written with only basics is because in Mormonism to step beyond the very basic tenants is to destroy faith of the members. Example: Teaching people who were taught JS used the Urim and Thuminum the real story is not fiath promoting.
Wow! I think many of these coments tell more about the state of the writer than the manual. We had another great lesson today, started off with something like “what things occured to you as you read and pondered this week?” and that started us into a really superb discussion along the basic lines of the lesson topics with many different sisters participating – we were fed spiritually and intellectually, sorry for those of you who don’t have the right teachers or the spiritual openness to continue to learn from the basic doctrines of the church.
It seems to me that the people that have left comments about good experiences in the manuals have just pointed out how skilled and prepared their teachers were. I think a skilled and inspired teacher can use these brief lessons as a jumping-off point for a great lesson. Of course, that doesn’t say anything about the quality of the manual, just about how great the teacher is. Such a teacher could make a great lesson out of any manual or even without a manual. What about the teachers who are well meaning but less skilled and knowledgeable? Aren’t those the ones that the manual should most be trying to help?
The new lesson manuals are very basic. I’m an Elders Quorum President, and it really is a struggle to get the Elders (many of whom are Return Missionaries) to sit through a class reciting stuff that that spent 2 years teaching day in day out.
The challenge is not that we don’t know this stuff, but ‘some’ aren’t living it. Because of that, the rest of us keep getting sent back to resit the same year again.
It is an intellectual challenge, as, without mental stimulation, people tire of hearing the same message over and over again – they want to step up and be challenged at a high more stimulating level.
For those who ask, what would Jesus do? the Answer is already contained in the scriptures – he taught people for multiple hours, with content that outstounded or shocked many. He did not shy away from discussing the doctrine of truth. I am concerned that too often we ‘avoid’ or circumnavigate issues that we should simply address head on – like polygamy, eternal progression, etc etc. There is no shame, no fear in revealed truth. What we do find is challenging and inspiring.
Well, until then, I’ll plod along feeling like i’m being shunted back to remedial on a weekly basis. When all we really want to do is grow and be inspired.
Upon reflection, i’ve probably been slightly hard on this manual. However, its use in GP and RS does present some challenges.
A straight reading provides very basic content. The class is free to discuss this content and develop it in any particular direction, with the teacher as a facilitator of discussion. However, since it avoids and depth in the presentation of the points, such discussion is less likely to be guided by the manuals content, leaves the class at the mercy of its own views or misunderstandings, and has created a feeling that we are being forced back into remedial class all over again.
I’ve read through the posts on here, and can understand peoples frustrations. On balance, the arguments about math are a little apple and orange. Math is a purely logical subject, it is not given to debate, only factual outcomes of calculations. The fact that i can do addition r subtraction prepares me to move to the next level. However, the Gospel is not like Math – we do not master Faith, Repentance, comprehending the promptings of the holy ghost upon the first or even the tenth reading – but grow in understanding throughout our entire life through multiple readings.
On that basis, i have absolutely no issue with an apparantly basic manual being thrust upons for our learning. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself and it certainly has its place – i would not want to conside myself complete in all of these basic areas.
However, we also crave development in learning and comprehending those things that we barely have sight of. As a specie we are always seeking to learn – its part of a childs make up to explore and find answers. So i do fully understand why so many are frustrated when all class led discussions are based on a book or books that seem to have been stripped of information that drills down into some of these apparent basics.
Joseph Smith did not seem to have a problem writing and publishing on these issues, neither have generations of church leaders. However, in recent years, and objective reader cannot but help notice the absence of such content in modern materials, and the removal of such potentially ‘controvertial’ but ‘fundamental’ content from manuals.
It does seem to smack of fear of controversy, or trying to blend into the mainstream by avoiding discussing the very things that make our LDS culture and theology so unique. The appearance of fear or aversion to discussing such subjects as polygamy or eternal progression smacks of a lack of faith in those principles. I find this odd since i feel no need to apologise for those beliefs. What is given by God is given by God, and i should not feel ashamed of it. I feel no need to meet the ‘faith’ requirements of mainstream christianity by pretending that many of the teachings by early prophets were simply personaly held views. If this were the case, i’d hope President Monson would simply come out with a book that listed all of these statements and provided the correct interpretation of them, or clarified why these things are simply and exclusively the personal view of church leaders gone by.
My own experience is one where i’ve been taught, or sat in discussions over the years with teachers, church leaders, and older family members who openly discussed these doctrines and held the discussion in a manner that confirmed ‘As Man is God once was, as God is Man may become’. As far as i am aware, that IS a church doctrine. That is what the early prophets taught.
So, the issue is not really that this manual is too basic, it is that all depth of dicussion and deeper analysis of doctrine appears to be being removed or reworded in a less controvertial or offensive manner to the ‘mainstream’. Am I alone in thinking this?
I affirm that it is not wrong to make vocal the questions that come to mind. Open discussion leads to enlightenment. It would be great for Church leaders to hear some of these views, and not view them as rebelious, but merely seeking for guidance and clear answers to place us on the right track.
The content of the manuals leaves much to be desired. It is not intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually stimulating. It takes a VERY gifted and VERY prepared teacher to draw out interesting themes and to pull off a good lesson. In my experience, that happens very rarely.
A skilled teacher (professional) will always have a good lesson. The topics are not the concern – the organization is. You get what you pay for, and we choose not to pay for it. As a result we will never have consistently good teachers, good talks, or good worship music, since we don’t pay for it, but rely on relatively unskilled volunteers. We just have to accept that and move on.
I would like to know where many of the people posting are from. Reverting back on a mass scale to simple, clear doctrine seems like it would be a reaction to something. I don’t know how many of you have felt that awful, awkward feeling when you bring a friend to church and you sweat bullets and worried that someone will preach false doctrine. I think that sure, it would be great to completely open the flood gates and allow open discussions.
Frankly, once the church members all around the world start studying the scriptures on their own, praying fervently, doing home/visiting teaching, and just seeking guidance on spiritual matters, we can move on to greater things. If we’re all really dying to talk about Heavenly Mother, there are church members all over the world who love that kind of stuff.
I think that Elder Bednar’s talk Seek Learning by Faith to CES several years ago should be useful. We can start with any worthy and approved materials and invite the spirit into our classrooms so that the Holy Ghost becomes the true teacher.
The gospel is simple. That’s the beauty of it. Very often we try to make it more complicated because we have heard these things our entire life. We often forget the relatively new members of the church and investigators who attend Relief Society and Priesthood meetings. We also forget ourselves to get back to the basics and simplicity of the gospel. I’m appalled at some of the comments above. Teaching from this manual was a truly inspired idea.
These are exactly the teachings that the general membership of the Church are greatly in need of, in order to move the gospel forward. IMHO:)
tDMg
LdsNana
I think that the lessons from the Gospel Principles are quite basic, but so far the Elder’s Quorum discussions we’ve had based on them have been edifying and have helped me to refocus on the fundamental truths of the Gospel. Usually what I have seen is that the teacher covers the lesson topic, and then the class members testify to each other that the principles are true by sharing their own personal experiences and insights that confirm or support that principle. Often it seems to end up being a kind of topic-specific testimony meeting.
I do think it would be helpful for the teachers if the church would publish a supplementary list of Conference Talks that correspond to each lesson so that the teachers have a little more material to draw upon.
My only concern is for people like my mother, who teaches the Gospel Essentials class in her ward, and for her students, for whom the 3rd hour in relief society or priesthood meeting is often very redundant. I don’t know how to fix that problem.
Hooray for getting back to the basics!
You the know the concept is fairly sound. It’s basic enough that it ought to force teachers to rely upon the Spirit, which would guide people to tailor the subjects in the class to the understanding of the class, whether the basics are needed or a more thought-provoking discussion. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, the teachers have just doubled down on reading the manual word for word and not thinking through the types of questions necessary to stimulate discussion.
And for those of you who see it as weakness–the head is only as healthy as the body–and the body is sick–Satan has a real number upon the Saints–it’s only a matter of time before the Lord will have the cleanse the sickness.
I have to be honest here, but I find the manuals incredibly depressing. I asked to be moved to the nursery because I can’t take the lessons. It hurts me when I read them and read something I have come to know are not the true history of the church. I’d rather be taught out of Richard Bushman’s biography of Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling (which is sold in Deseret Book.) This book deals with things like Joseph Smith plural marriage, magic, treasure hunting, and other things that are true but perhaps unsettling; however, they are otherwise ignored by the mainstream church. I relate to what some have said that they think that full disclosure might harm peoples faith or might not be faith promoting, but I feel that it’s more harmful to people’s faith when they learn these things to be true and it appear that the church is trying to sweep them under the rug. I can also relate to a lot of what has already been said in these comments. I esp can relate to the feeling that others have written on here about how the manuals are insulting to our intelligence. Esp if you are more familiar with the alternative yet true history of the church.
Sometimes, I feel like Sunday School lessons are just members trying to one up each other with how righteous they are, and I think that the manuals contribute to this by not stimulating deep and growth promoting dialogue or challenges the class to go beyond what we’ve all heard over and over and over again.
I have really enjoyed teaching the Gospel Principles class to our new-members over the years and love these lessons. There is so much to talk about even on the simplest of topics, even in our priesthood class. Yes – a good teacher does help – but reading paragraphs out of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church books never did a great deal for me. By opening up the scriptures and looking at what is being taught about even these most basic tenets of our faith is inspiring. What does disappoint me is when the Saviour is not mentioned by a speaker or a teacher and how living a particular principle is helping us become more like Him. I do think that we need to focus more on the Saviour in lessons and talks. After all, the whole purpose of the Gospel is to bring individuals and families unto Christ.
I would have to agree with Anna’s comment. I can see real value in focusing on the basic principles of the Gospel, but many yearn for a deeper understanding, the kind of understanding they believe the brethren have. Indeed, you can easily find a mandate in the scriptures for that depth of study. I had that yearning, and started collecting conference Ensign issues so I could understand quotations from lesson manuals in their full context. Along the way I started collecting all the regular monthly Ensign and Improvement Era issues. One of the issues I found had full color photographs of the Book of Abraham papyri. Imagine my astonishment when I realized that they had been found! Why was I not taught this in my regular Church meetings? It seemed like a wonderful discovery that should become common knowledge in the Church. Of course, that led to further study, and great confusion about this topic, since the Church doesn’t seem to want to address it. Then, last year, BYU professor John Gee is quoted in the Church News as saying that the “The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.” Being quoted in the Church News gives it a quasi-official tone. From this and other observations I get the feeling that all Church doctrine is not as solid as I once thought, which helps explain why the manuals are becoming more simple and straightforward.
What is also interesting is some of the things left out of the current version of the manual. For example, in this weeks’ lesson on Chapter 11 – Jesus Christ, the last line of the very first paragraph used to read: “We each need to have a personal relationship with him [Jesus].” Now that line is gone. It seems like we should be encouraged to pursue a personal relationship with Christ – that’s been the historic definition of a “Christian.” Is there something to the criticism of non LDS people that the leaders are more concerned about being committed to the church than to the person of Christ? And have any of you checked out the chapter by chapter comments on the manual on this site? http://www.irr.org/mit/Gospel-Principles-Study-Guide.html
I’m glad that this manual is being taught in the Gospel Principles class. I am a returning member and my husband is a new convert. Without these simple lessons, my husband would have shied away from the church because he is not very naturally inclined toward the abstract. As for me, I am humbled by building upon my already existing understanding of these principles. On the side, I study more complex teachings, but for my husband’s sake and the sake of the other new members or investigators, I whole-heartedly agree with the teaching of the basic principles from this book.
← Previous Comments