Standard Sunday School understanding

[Vort]

Clarity-over-agreement has started a thread on fasting that begins as follows:

I would like to start a discussion on fasting. One that will enlighten us more then just the standard sunday school understanding of the subject.

I'm curious about Clarity's emphasized portion above (and to be clear, the emphasis is mine), which I have read or heard many times over the years, often on this very site.

I'm wondering: Is this merely an expression understood by some people in the Church to mean "childish, immature, surface-level thinking" and not actually meant to be taken at face value? Or do people really have such useless Sunday School classes?

My ward's gospel doctrine class, which I have always thought of as relatively standard in the Church (perhaps somewhat more interesting than the norm, but that's just because I know and love most of those who participate), involves a true and often deep discussion of such principles. The statement "We fast because it hurts and the pain is good for us" (as suggested in Clarity's point #2, "If Fasting is a sacrifice of bodily discomfort than why dont we participate in inflicting pain upon oneself as a form of sacrifice?") would not survive two seconds in my ward's gospel doctrine class. On the contrary, the discussion in our gospel doctrine class would begin with the very questions Clarity asks, then proceed from there.

[Clarity_over_agreement]

well that's the Great thing about LDS.Net is that you can raise issues like this in a less formal atmosphere than your gospel doctrine class.

And no this statement is not meant to mean "childish or immature" but rather it is meant to mean "surface-level thinking". I mean to ignite conversation and points that aren't usually talked about that would be beneficial both in understanding for one's self and also for debate or discussion with non members who might ask questions like this.

Those who go to church for many years or who have grown up in the church always hear similar talks on fasting again and again. I am trying to incite conversation in a way that you may or may not have thought about before.

[Vort]

well that's the Great thing about LDS.Net is that you can raise issues like this in a less formal atmosphere than your gospel doctrine class.

And no this statement is not meant to mean "childish or immature" but rather it is meant to mean "surface-level thinking". I mean to ignite conversation and points that aren't usually talked about that would be beneficial both in understanding for one's self and also for debate or discussion with non members who might ask questions like this.

Those who go to church for many years or who have grown up in the church always hear similar talks on fasting again and again. I am trying to incite conversation in a way that you may or may not have thought about before.

Sure, I understand that, Clarity. I am not questioning your intent, which is clear enough. Rather, I am wondering about your phrase "standard sunday school understanding". In my experience, the standard Sunday School understanding is profound indeed. The fact that you used the phrase suggests that you have not had the same experience. Since I have heard others use a similar phrase, that suggests that, for many people, Sunday School does not provide much of an enriching spiritual experience.

Since my own experience is exactly counter to that, I am wondering what most people's experience is. Do you, like Clarity, find Sunday School to be surface-level and lacking in substance? Or, like me, do you find it to be a doctrinal and scriptural feast?

[Dravin]

More often then not I find Sunday School a little tedious. Now from time to time you get a good discussion but most of the time I'm not feeling anything from it, intellectual or spiritual. Generally from what I've noticed it boils down to participation, if you can get the class into the lesson things perk up, but if it stays at the teacher asking questions and people just giving answers back stage then not much happens. Then you have the folks who do offer something up (bless their souls) and it is so out there (either false or pet doctrine) that everyone kinda shifts uncomfortably in their seats and doesn't say anything.

I do of course admit that at least half the problem is myself in finding Sunday School other than a spiritual feast, but there you have it.

[john doe]

My current experience is what Vort says. My ward uses 3 teachers who switch off so we get 3 different types of discussions depending on the instructor, but they are all deep and thought-provoking. I have also been in classes that bore me to death.

I think a lot of it depends on the people. If you tend to have 'Standard Sunday School Discussion' with "Standard Sunday School Answers' that is because the members of the class don't put a lot of thought into the gospel and how it relates to them in their everyday life. As with many things in life, it also seems to me that the people who are bored or turned off by their Sunday School lessons most likely aren't preparing for the lesson by reading the accompanying scriptures ahead of time or participating in class as much as they could either.

[ryanh]

I've had it both ways. Some wards have the teacher/participitant mix that make for good discussions. Then, there are others that just seem to be lacking any pulse in the class despite what the teacher does. There is no "standard" IMO. It's what the ward makes it, and what the ward is made up of.

[Misshalfway]

I think there is power in acquiring a sound understanding of the basics. I think sometimes we think that being more spiritual means understanding deep doctrine and being able to show it to others who haven't risen as high. (gospel doctrine peril #114) I actually think knowing more gospel facts isn't exactly the same as developing wisdom or spirituality.

I find it interesting that the new GP manual is now being added to RS and PH. Maybe the church needs a proper refresh and reorientation to the basics.

[beefche]

I'm one of those who uses the term "Sunday School answers." Typically, when I'm teaching and ask a question, I try to ask questions that varies from just "read your scriptures, fast, pray"--because it is the discussion about HOW those help that, I think, helps us more.

I hate, hate, hate when teachers ask silly, insult-my-intelligence questions, "Who is the Savior of the Earth?" That's fine for Primary, but I've had teachers do that in Gospel Doctrine and RS. So, it annoys me when a question is asked and the ONLY answer is "read your scriptures, fast, pray." Of course those are vital and worthy--but let's talk about the reality and the how behind the answers.

[Justice]

I think one can have engaging discussions about the basic teachings of the Church and avoid those things that should be left for personal study. We have many great discussions in Gospel Doctrine, but there are some thing you should just avoid bringing up. Everyone is at a different level of understanding, and in an authorized meeting as part of the meeting block, the discussions should stay focused around the scriptures and what's in the manual.

I admit to having ideas that others haven't considered or do not commonly share. I do not bring those up at Church.

[sixpacktr]

I'm one of those who uses the term "Sunday School answers." Typically, when I'm teaching and ask a question, I try to ask questions that varies from just "read your scriptures, fast, pray"--because it is the discussion about HOW those help that, I think, helps us more.

I hate, hate, hate when teachers ask silly, insult-my-intelligence questions, "Who is the Savior of the Earth?" That's fine for Primary, but I've had teachers do that in Gospel Doctrine and RS. So, it annoys me when a question is asked and the ONLY answer is "read your scriptures, fast, pray." Of course those are vital and worthy--but let's talk about the reality and the how behind the answers.

Having been a SS teacher for the youth and for the adults, as well as in PH, I know that the teachers are counseled to not let the lesson drift into unknown paths (read EQ discussions!), but to keep to the lesson plan. Now, I don't ascribe wholly to that, in that I don't believe the General SS Presidency just wants the teachers to read straight from the book. They want them to prepare and bring their own insights and thoughts into the lessons. So if a teacher is asking 'who is the Savior of the world?' in GD class, then he needs to be released, IMO. Or at least talked to by the SS President.

I have always loved SS, and when I have taught I have tried to make it interesting for those I taught. Because learning the Gospel SHOULD be fun and exciting. But, we also need to be sure that what we teach is rooted in gospel doctrines, not pet theories, etc.

I have a real problem in that area, so much so that my arm can be black and blue from my wife punching me. In my current calling I feel I need to correct incorrect statements right then and there. She (my wife) thinks I offend others, and I tend to be rather blunt, but I always talk to the person afterwards to apologize if I was blunt but to teach.

About a year ago or so, we had a woman get up during F&T meeting. I had opened the meeting and before turning it over to the congregation had bore my testimony of the power of the PH and it's effect in our lives. This woman got up and affirmed what I had said and then proceeded to tell how she had had her 14 year old son come in and give her a PH blessing when she was sick one time! I looked at the Bishop, he at me, and just then my wife called me because she was very sick and needed a blessing. So I wasn't able to correct the outright false doctrine that came over the pulpit. And no one did, apparently.

So 2 months later when I was giving a talk I addressed that issue point blank. Said I didn't mean to offend, but that is false doctrine and we need to be aware of that. I had several come up to me afterward and thank me for correcting that. This isn't to toot my horn, but rather to point out that these types of things are constantly being spouted out by members who don't understand or don't want to understand.

[beefche]

I'm not promoting speculation theories at church. But when we talk about the realities of living the Gospel in this fallen world, I think that we can talk about the how and why behind the typical standard answers. Finding out how Sis Smith deals with having love for an enemy is just as vital as simply "read your scriptures, fast, pray".

As an example--I taught RS and the topic was anger management. So, one of my questions after discussing scriptures/talks from prophets was "what would be an appropriate way to deal with your frustration when your husband comes home and doesn't take out the trash?" or "how do you make your home one of peace and love when your kids are screaming at each other?" Someone answering "read your scriptures, fast, pray" is going to get a follow up question of "how does that help you?" I want more than just those answers. I want to deal with the reality of life and how to apply Gospel principles in our lives.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm just trying to remember Sunday School with anyone other than a bunch of seven-year-olds . . .

[Clarity_over_agreement]

Usually in Sunday School I get a lot of stories that are pull on the heart strings but not many thought-out ideas. Most of my intellectual conversation I get from doctrinal classes at school, friends, or forums like these.

[Moksha]

On these message boards we talk about items that are never discussed on Sunday. We can say things we would never say on Sunday. On these boards we can transcend the solemness and reverence so desired on Sunday and make our posts reflect our experience rather than an abbreviation of some former conference talk. No slow sonorous tones or dirges here.

We are ready to Salsa. We are ready to dig in and exegete!

:)

[Traveler]

Clarity-over-agreement has started a thread on fasting that begins as follows:

I'm curious about Clarity's emphasized portion above (and to be clear, the emphasis is mine), which I have read or heard many times over the years, often on this very site.

I'm wondering: Is this merely an expression understood by some people in the Church to mean "childish, immature, surface-level thinking" and not actually meant to be taken at face value? Or do people really have such useless Sunday School classes?

My ward's gospel doctrine class, which I have always thought of as relatively standard in the Church (perhaps somewhat more interesting than the norm, but that's just because I know and love most of those who participate), involves a true and often deep discussion of such principles. The statement "We fast because it hurts and the pain is good for us" (as suggested in Clarity's point #2, "If Fasting is a sacrifice of bodily discomfort than why dont we participate in inflicting pain upon oneself as a form of sacrifice?") would not survive two seconds in my ward's gospel doctrine class. On the contrary, the discussion in our gospel doctrine class would begin with the very questions Clarity asks, then proceed from there.

My understanding is that a Sunday School answer is anything that we say on Sunday - but are likely not to live as an example the rest of the week. It is more important to be an example at all times and not just able to give answers on Sunday.

The Traveler