How much stock do we put in the statements of our seminary/institute teachers?

[Backroads]

Lesser sources compared to what?

Lesser sources as compared to anyone else reasonably well-versed in doctrine. I'm not sure I care for the attitude that we should fear seminary teachers will be teaching children false doctrine. Not that anyone here has made the claim "All seminary teachers teach false doctrine", but I have run across the fear before in the real world.

I agree completely it's wise to consider teachings learned in seminary or institute, but why only be scrutinous with the teachings of seminary teachers? Granted, your gospel doctrine class in Sunday School usually has someone around to make sure any crazy topics aren't taken too far; but all things being equal, why be careful about what you learned in seminary but not apply that same scrutiny to your Sunday School teacher?

[Dravin]

I agree completely it's wise to consider teachings learned in seminary or institute, but why only be scrutinous with the teachings of seminary teachers?

Has anyone here suggested such?

Granted, your gospel doctrine class in Sunday School usually has someone around to make sure any crazy topics aren't taken too far; but all things being equal, why be careful about what you learned in seminary but not apply that same scrutiny to your Sunday School teacher?

Indeed, why not apply the same scrutiny to your Sunday School teacher?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Dravin

[Backroads]

No, Dravin, no one has made such a claim. But I've just been struggling to express my exact thoughts on the matter. I often tend to speak in questions. I'm really quite of the same opinion on the matter as you.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Backroads

[rameumptom]

Teach your kids that the teachers are not infallible, and that they can also be caught up in rumor and speculation. So, when they teach or say something, have your student ask for a primary source for the information. If the teacher cannot back up their statement with a solid source, then the student does not need to believe it, and the teacher should not be teaching it.

I also hold to the concept that the newer the primary source, the better. You do not want the teacher to explain the Godhead, Adam, etc., from the Journal of Discourses, for example....

[rameumptom]

Well, it really comes down to what you are considering average. I understand where you are getting at, I'm just inclined to figure someone with a graduate degree will at least be able to give citations that can be checked up on. I have to admit that I'm speaking in a personal knowledge vacuum, I've never been taught by a CES employed religious studies graduate degree holding Institute teacher.

For the record I'm ambivalent on the supposed superiority or inferiority of seminary and institute teachers. I'm inclined to think that the individual is the overwhelming factor, not the title.

We all hope this is true most of the time. However, the instance last year with BYU Religion professor Randy Bott shows this is not always the case, even for those at BYU with tenure in a LDS religion position. FYI, Bott was interviewed by a news agency, and told them that the priesthood ban was all about the curse of Cain on the blacks. The Church had to come out and refute it.

[Finrock]

Good morning gopecon! I hope you are having a good day. :)

The fact that full time teachers are vetted a lot more carefully than your average Sunday School teacher. Institute teachers in particular generally have graduate degrees in religion. Does this make them perfect? No, but probably a better source than the Sunday School teacher who just returned to activity a year ago, or a convert, etc.

I have a hard time agreeing with the idea in your post. I have no doubt that any man or any woman, regardless of their background, who does their duty and relies on the Spirit will teach pure docrtine masterfully. When it comes to the gospel, it is the Spirit that matters most.

Respectfully,

Finrock

[Vort]

We all hope this is true most of the time. However, the instance last year with BYU Religion professor Randy Bott shows this is not always the case, even for those at BYU with tenure in a LDS religion position. FYI, Bott was interviewed by a news agency, and told them that the priesthood ban was all about the curse of Cain on the blacks. The Church had to come out and refute it.

The Church did not refute what he said by claiming it was false. The Church merely stated that Brother Bott's ideas were his own and not the official position of the Church.

[trubludru]

I have generally good feelings about seminary and institute along with the instructors who teach them. They are generally well meaning, well studied individuals that can help others gain Gospel knowledge and perhaps help others strengthen theor testimonies. (I have a cousin that is a full time seminary teacher and I think he is a pretty good guy). I also fully enjoyed my experiences in the CES progams.

The only hesitancy I get is that there are some members of the church that do regard the programs and instructors as infallible and seem to hold a certain extreme reverance towards them. I think these would be the type of people who I met as a college student that think if 1 institute class a semester is good, 2 must be much better and 3 will almost assuredly gain them a spot in the CK, and who would be prone to think others who don't share their zeal for Instutute as heathens. This to me seems to be the makings of a "Pharisee" (for lack of a better term) type class in the Church. I don't know that it is really a widespread problem in the church. But I see problems with placing undo importance on what CES instructors may teach peripherally in connection to a subject over the doctrines taught in the scriptures and by church leaders and officers set apart by the laying on of hands.

Like I said though, I think generally CES is uplifting and a way to add to spirtual knowledge and testimony and that most CES instructors are good at teaching truth and not speculation or hearsay.