Gospel Doctrine

[MorningStar]

When I graduated from high school and started attending Gospel Doctrine in my mom's ward, I started calling it "Gospel Speculation" or "Gospel Argumentation". Without fail, a few men in there would go on and on, going on tangents, arguing with each other, etc.

One brother would say, "Jacob's words are so poetic!"

This old guy Brother O would say, "Let's just call it what it is! It's a scripture! Just leave it at that!"

It was sort of entertaining, but annoying. Not too uplifting.

Then this man who was not liked for a variety of reasons (long story) was teaching in High Priest Group and this guy did not take kindly to being contradicted. Someone corrected him and he said, "THAT'S IT!!!! I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!"

He stormed out and there was an awkward silence for a while until Brother O said, "I didn't even say anything!" Everyone cracked-up. At least Brother O knew he was that way.

But the high priest guy never came back to church. Ever.

It's taken me a while to realize that some wards have normal Gospel Doctrine classes and I'm trying to get more comfortable with giving my 2 cents in there.

Anyone have similar stories? Are any of you Gospel Doctrine teachers? How do you handle it when people act that way? My goodness. I'm not sure I would say the right thing in a situation like that. I almost spoke up as a teen, but didn't want to disrespect my elders.

[HiJolly]

This old guy Brother O would say, "Let's just call it what it is! It's a scripture! Just leave it at that!"

It was sort of entertaining, but annoying. Not too uplifting.

Then this man who was not liked for a variety of reasons (long story) was teaching in High Priest Group and this guy did not take kindly to being contradicted. Someone corrected him and he said, "THAT'S IT!!!! I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!"

He stormed out and there was an awkward silence for a while until Brother O said, "I didn't even say anything!" Everyone cracked-up. At least Brother O knew he was that way.

But the high priest guy never came back to church. Ever.

This happened to me, but I was the offender, which is kinda weird because I am not really "that way". The problem was the instructor had brought in Duane Crowther's book "Prophecy - Key to the Future" and had read through this 'end times' prophecy (very doom-and-gloom, you know) after which I commented that the attributed prophet had denied in a statement published in the Deseret News any involvement with the 'prophecy', and we should be careful before putting too much trust in it.

He responded "Well, you can put your head in the sand if you want too!" That kinda put a hush on the group, but luckily it was right at the end of the lesson, so it went by without comment. But I think the Group leadership said something to him, and he hasn't been back to priesthood mtg, though he has on occasion come to Sacrament mtg.

It's taken me a while to realize that some wards have normal Gospel Doctrine classes and I'm trying to get more comfortable with giving my 2 cents in there.

Gospel Doctrine can be a mine field, sometimes. These days ours are very peaceful, since the radical socialist and the 'guru' (two different guys (why is it usually a guy?)) moved out of the ward.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

I have traveled the world over and have loved and enjoyed attending church – including Gospel Doctrine everywhere I have been. I though it might be fun to share one rather interesting experience. During my first visit to Taiwan I wanted to have a special experience. My company had provided a translator but only when I was at work. The rest of the time I was on my own. Attending church is a high priority for me. During the week I had taken more than one occasion to fast and pray concerning my Sabbath experience. I was expecting to have the spiritual gift of interpretation of tongues.

My first experience being immersed in the Chinese language was a most difficult one. I could not recognize any sounds – even the sacrament prayers left we confused with where in the prayer we were. When I went to Gospel Doctrine I was sure that everything would come to me and I would start understanding. I can honestly say that I did not understand one single word said by anyone. There were some pictures I recognized but nothing I could understand. I felt that the gift of tongues was not something for me this Sabbath.

After Gospel Doctrine the teacher took time to come over and talk to me in broken English. He asked me how I enjoyed the class. I told him I must be honest and admit I did not understand even one word. I asked him what the lesson was for that week. He responded, “The gift of tongues”.

We will be taught great lessons in Gospel Doctrine – but they may not come to us in the manner we expect.

The Traveler

[a-train]

I've never had too much go down in Gospel Doctrine. I taught in Elders Quorum for a while and that was fun. I've been in classes with people who are always going off on some tangent. I rather enjoy that. Usually it wakes up a sleeping room.

-a-train

[Snow]

I like fish.

[prisonchaplain]

I'll just throw this out--since I'm an teacher for adult Sunday School. My classes usually involve Scripture readings followed by open ended questions. Usually, what is called for is not so much interpretation, as anecdote. "Have you experienced this truth? Have you an example similar to what this prophet, or that character had?" So, there is lots of discussion, but only very occasional tension, caused by someone infusing a strong opinion.

Do you experience lots of discussion, or is it mostly lecture?

[Guest Malcolm]

I am of the opinion that the instructor should follow the outline of the class. The lesson manuals have far more questions and points to address than time for the average class. We must avoid at all cost digressing and deviating from the outline. Personal experiences MUST be directly related to the subject, short and to the point as to avoid story telling and "pontificating" during the lesson.

There is always a few theologians in every ward. The leadership of the ward should be gentle but watchful in order to keep inattentive instructors from presenting opinion and anecdote as fact in front of the class. That is easier said than done but we must try. Specially because of the investigators and new members that may be present and who are usually still trying to grasp the doctrine.

[rameumptom]

There was a time in the Church when speculation ran rampant. Any little quote was used and usually out of context, which opened the door to contention. This is why the First Presidency recently stated that a person could be a Democrat and a worthy LDS, for example.

In the last 25 years, the Church has made a concerted effort to get away from speculation and back to pure doctrine. President Packer has constantly told us to "teach the doctrine." He's well known to have a particular question when the 12 are teaching in their weekly meeting: "And therefore...?" IOW, what is the purpose and the doctrinal principle behind what is being taught?

I am one that probably knows more of the speculation than anyone else in my stake, but pushes the doctrine only in Church meetings. Speculations are fine in private conversations, but not where our main purpose is to teach pure doctrine and establish a unity. Some members like driving their point to the point of contention, and perhaps we need to realize that unity is often more important than "being 100%" right on everything.

[a-train]

There is a fella in my ward who is a tremendous inspiration to me. He is a by-the-book Mormon. He is always good at bringing conversations in class back to the text, but they've put him in primary. This man is never contentious and very meek. He is a quiet man.

Anyway, there is another guy that is always off on some tangent and one time he said: 'There is a scripture that says such and such..'

So this fella that is inspirational to me said loudly: 'NEVER HEARD THAT ONE!' It was like someone bumped the turn-table and scratched the record.

Eyes all fell on him as he sat there with a look on his face that said: 'Well, I've never heard of that scripture.'

This gave me an idea.

I made a rule one Sunday that all answers in the class must be a scripture. As I posed questions in the manual and dealing with the subject, class members had to offer scriptures as answers.

It actually went very well and everyone enjoyed it. I continued to do it until I was released for a new calling. It makes it difficult for people to argue about the validity of a statement when the statement is scripture.

-a-train

[inthearmsofsleep]

I think the reason Gospel Doctrine classes have the potential to explode in controversy is because they're often full of men who think they know the Gospel from beginning to end, and they're not humble like the teenagers and children who are still learning. They're so set in their ways that they feel it's their place to argue what's OFFICIAL doctrine, while much of what they know could just be popular Mormon mythology. My dad has told me a couple things that I took to be true because I figured he knows everything about the Gospel since he was once bishop, but then later I found out it's not official church doctrine and is actually something we do not believe to be true. The Gospel Doctrine class I'm in right now is actually fairly peaceful... we have a very knowledgeable teacher who used to be a college professor and (seemingly) knows the ins and outs of every scriptural story.

[MorningStar]

My class now is pretty great. I just wish more women felt comfortable sharing their thoughts. We even have teachers who are women and women still rarely speak up. I'm trying to make a goal to say more in there.

With my mom's ward, I don't think the teacher would lecture, but people would raise their hands when they wanted to make a comment and it just got out of control. That guy who left abruptly though, he used to be the Gospel Doctrine teacher and it was nothing but him talking the entire time without any questions. I think that might be part of the reason why people just started raising their hands at random times - because they wanted to give their 2 cents and weren't given the opportunity.

I feel like I did in school. I knew the answers, but I was so intimidated of speaking in front of everyone. I talk quite a bit in Relief Society though.

[MorningStar]

What kind of fish, Snow?

[Iggy]

When I reactivated back into the Church, we were studying The Book of Mormon.

Our GD Teacher seldom if ever kept to the lesson manual. Her "lessons" (and I use the term very lightly here) were more of a play by play of "Her Life of Crisis'" I was totally lost and confused, and disgusted with The Powers To Be for allowing her to go on and on and on about her families "trials and tribulations", each and every week.

One of the members suggested that I go to this web site: The Gospel Doctrine Class and supplement her lessons w/his lessons. If it hadn't of been for Bro Beardall's internet lessons I never would have learned a thing. Not only was I lost- so was the rest of the class.

I had Wed & Sun off- so on wed I would meet with a group of women from Church and we would study the next Sundays GD lesson. This way we taught each other the BofM- then we went on to the D & C. 1/3 of the way through the D & C- our 'teacher' was released and we got a new and infinitely better teacher.

We still all met for our Wed classes- I still use Bro Beardall's web site. I also go to LDS.org and pull off the lesson used by the teacher and have them both with me when I go to class.

I have moved to a different state and to date haven't had a terrible GD teacher again. Though quite often I am the only one who is participating in class- oh, there is one young man (young to me- he is in his late 30's) who will ask if I brought my "cheat sheets" and then ask if he can quick run some copies off so that he and some of the elderly (older than me -in their 70's) sisters can use them too.

[WillowTheWhisp]

We are always told that we should read and study the lessons at home anyway, referring to the little study guide, so that we can participate usefully in class. Some people do and some people don't. I really don't like people just blurting out comments and questions. I really feel it's better to show courtesy by putting your hand up and waiting for the teacher to acknowledge that you would like to speak. Otherwise it can become a bit of a free for all.

A few years back we had one guy who was full of himself and seemed to be out to prove that he knew more about everything than the teacher. She seemed to be quite intimidated by this brother and he obviously got pleasure from asking her questions (which didn't always have much bearing on the lesson) which were so obscure he knew she wouldn't be able to answer them.

During one lesson he was doing this by constantly throwing out the same question, to which she had already replied to the best of her ability but he wasn't happy with the answer so despite the fact that she tried to move on he kept harping back to this point.

Another brother in the class addressed him saying that if he would wait until after the lesson he would meet with him and explain the subject in greater detail but it didn't pertain to the lesson and we were missing vital doctrine by this distraction. The brother replied, "Oh, it's OK. I KNOW the answer. I just want to know if she does."

Now in my opinion he was the one who looked a fool because he was trying to prove how much cleverer he was than the teacher who had studied the lesson, and only the lesson and was doing her best to teach that lesson as presented in the manual by people who probably knew more than the argumentative brother.

We also have a dear old guy who often wanders off at a tangent and has to be brought back to the point but he only does it because something has reminded him of something which has reminded him of something else. There is no intentional contention there.

[Elphaba]

A caveat first: This post sounds like it's all about me, and I suppose it is. But I write about my experience to help you understand how my experience ties into the thread's theme. So don't think too badly of me, okay?

I grew up in So. California but found myself on my own at 17 in Cambridge, MA. I was still a member then, and found wonderful roomates through the Church. This was by far the best years of my life. I loved Boston, feeling as if I had come home I had such an affinity for it.

One of the things I loved best was that I belong to a branch with students who went to Harvard, MIT, Radcliffe, UMASS, etc., and because of this, there was no lack, and no taboo, in asking question--these kids loved to talk and discuss and analyze. I had not experienced this before, and I soaked it up like a sponge. I was enthralled.

It was also where I learned I had a brain. I had never known I was intelligent, and my fellow members, most of them anyway, were always supportive of me, challenging me, and letting me that I should not be upset because I did not know all of the things they did. They explained I was capable of knowing them, and that I just had not been in a situation where I could have learned them. I took this seriously, and eventually I started to believe them. It really was a magical time for me.

I'm going to be a snobby name dropper and tell you two of these people were Mitt Romney and Claudia Bushman, wife of Richard Bushman.

So as to the OP, when in Cambridge, all of us were the "weirdo" of Gospel Doctrine. All of us asked the "question not to be asked" in any of the western states, most especially in Utah, although I did not know this yet. We would discuss Adam/God, polygamy, Church schisms, etc., but it was always discussed in a way that was clear these things were historical, and I believe the seeds of my love of Mormon history were planted.

Then, I moved back to Utah. I remember my first day back to Church in GD class. Thinking nothing of it, I asked a question about the lesson. I will never forget the look on the teacher's face when he said "We don't need to question these things. These things are written for us to follow, and that is all we need to know." I was stunned.

To go from a the Church where my intelligence and input was encouraged and sought after, to the Church that felt like a prison where I was not to question aything, and where I was to act like a Stepford Student, made my soul wither at what I thought then was major opression. Of course, today I would not shut up, but it doesn't really matter now.

My point, in case it was embedded so deep in my prose no one gets my point, is that I think the beliefs of those who act out in GD get their ideas from the culture they grew up in. Those from the West, and especially the older members who grew up with many of the myths, of which Mormonism has many, will have the more rigid, but discredited themes. Those from wards full of converts will not be as rigid, but more fluid expect when discussing those doctrine that are not open to change.

Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule, and this is just my opinion, so I could be completely off. But I have gone to Church in Utah, and in Massachusetts. Their approaches to questioning were completely different, and I think those that do not encourage questions and provide answers do help to create the fanaticism apparent in some of those described in the stories on this thread. I even see it in my own family.

Okay, I have written a book and I hope the people who read it understand what the heck I am saying because it was pretty much a free write.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[Misshalfway]

I think that Gospel Doctrine and High Priests group go wrong.....at least sometimes......when the instructor chooses not to follow the manual. I love it when the teacher says, "the lesson was suppose to be blah blah blah, but I have chosen my remarks from this nice book I read." I always worry when they don't follow the lesson plans outlined by the brethren.

Mostly though, I love gospel doctrine. I love teaching it and I love asking great questions and hearing spirit filled answers. We are all learning. Learning about the gospel, learning to be good learners and learning to get along with one another. Some wards have more to learn that others in this area.

I was teaching once and I had one guy argue with me over how much we are allowed to pay for tithing. He felt that 10% was only a guideline. He got quite upset. I didn't. I bore my testimony best I could and invited him to discuss his ideas with the bishop. I tried to listen and tried not to argue. And then I moved on. I think the teacher can do a lot to direct and control the direction and content of the gospel doctrine discussion. Any arguing by the teacher or the learner is danger bay IMO.

[Moksha]

To go from a the Church where my intelligence and input was encouraged and sought after, to the Church that felt like a prison where I was not to question anything, and where I was to act like a Stepford Student, made my soul wither at what I thought then was major oppression. Of course, today I would not shut up, but it doesn't really matter now.

My point, in case it was embedded so deep in my prose no one gets my point, is that I think the beliefs of those who act out in GD get their ideas from the culture they grew up in. Those from the West, and especially the older members who grew up with many of the myths, of which Mormonism has many, will have the more rigid, but discredited themes. Those from wards full of converts will not be as rigid, but more fluid expect when discussing those doctrine that are not open to change.

Thanks,

Elphaba

I know somewhat what you mean. When I first started to attend the Gospel Doctrine class after graduating from the Gospel Essentials class, I thought it was going to be a class were we interacted with the material being presented, to view and (to use religious terminology - exegete) the meaning of the text, as opposed to sitting there and sometimes reading out loud.

I am happy to know that in different geographical locales and in university towns, this indeed does happen. I wish this could happen in my ward. So my suggestion is to treasure those individuals who ask the questions that require some thought. Wishing for their silence only encourages all of us to go back to a metaphorical sleep.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Maybe the problem arises when teachers have had such an emphasis put on the instruction that they must ONLY teach from the manual and ONLY teach the approved church material that they then fear that opening up a discussion can lead to the incorporation of false doctrine.

It can be difficult for a teacher to strike the balance between encouraging input and keeping things on track. It's good to have an informed discussion but we do need to be wary of going off on unrelated tangents and so they choose to err on the side of caution.

I know I often include visual aids and images in my (RS) lessons and we'd had a pep talk by the Stake RS President about keeping to the approved materials and I suddenly worried if she was getting at me and saying I shouldn't be using anything which didn't come out of the manual - but our own Ward RS President assured me that my lessons were still in keeping with the spirit of what was being taught because I used things which helped the sisters to understand the approved material, not go off on a branch line about something else however interesting that something else might be.

[tiancum]

i quoted hugh nibley once.

I said, "i like how hugh nibley said that 'we are here to learn to main things, to forgive and repent."

I was new to the ward, and i never should have said it. People think I am apostate now because of the gossip that had started. (later i found out from many that my eqp was spreading the rumors. We work together and i found out he didn't like me 'cos of the church rumors) He was telling people that I was a fringe member, and going apostate, was borderline abusive, and that I didn't read the scriptures any more. He counciled me that I should only read books by the apostles, and not quote hugh nibley. I apologized and am more careful now.

Honestly, i don't see anything wrong with saying that Jacob is poetic, but maybe i have lots more to learn.

The lies he spread did hurt me, I gotta admit. I learned lots though. I am more careful ...the last thing i want is to confuse a new member or weaken someone's testimony by something I have said. Maybe i needed a little trial like that to humble me enough to change.

[Elgama]

Our branch probably has odd discussions tbh it doesn't bother me - as I see it we are there to learn from each other and by the spirit I used to feel like you Morning Star until I realised everyone is at a different stage in the gospel ours is weird because it is full of old members who have no experience of the church outside of our little branch except maybe Stake Conference. Therefore I think our discussions are closer to the ones in the early church when we read the things on ;anti' websites church members from the 1800s have said it makes me grin and think of my own Gospel Doctrine class. A bigger ward with more members brought up in the gospel maybe even 3rd, 4th, 5th generation will have a different class. In the Book of Mormon we read about the pride cycle these days every unit is at a different stage in it, the more standard class may have more merit but ours makes me think more and stretches me further.

I just participate and say how I feel about things. One Sister in our branch has taught me a lot you take the spirit with you rather than expect someone else to provide it when you do that any class or talk can be uplifting. Its upto us to love the other members.

-Charley

[rameumptom]

A caveat first: This post sounds like it's all about me, and I suppose it is. But I write about my experience to help you understand how my experience ties into the thread's theme. So don't think too badly of me, okay? .....

My point, in case it was embedded so deep in my prose no one gets my point, is that I think the beliefs of those who act out in GD get their ideas from the culture they grew up in. Those from the West, and especially the older members who grew up with many of the myths, of which Mormonism has many, will have the more rigid, but discredited themes. Those from wards full of converts will not be as rigid, but more fluid expect when discussing those doctrine that are not open to change.

Obviously there are always exceptions to the rule, and this is just my opinion, so I could be completely off. But I have gone to Church in Utah, and in Massachusetts. Their approaches to questioning were completely different, and I think those that do not encourage questions and provide answers do help to create the fanaticism apparent in some of those described in the stories on this thread. I even see it in my own family.

Okay, I have written a book and I hope the people who read it understand what the heck I am saying because it was pretty much a free write.

Thanks,

Elphaba

The key is, we need to know the group we are with, first. Second, we need to review just what the purpose of a class is all about. While the intellegentsia in Cambridge may have enjoyed a rousing speculation class, the majority of the members are not.

Most LDS were not raised in the Church. Most have been members of the Church for less than 20 years. They didn't have Primary and MIA and seminary and Institute. So, the gospel needs to be based strongly on the doctrinal issues, rather than on the speculative.

Where do such deeper discussions belong? Invite a group of like-minded people to your home for weekly/monthly discussions, if you like.

The reality is, we will not be saved by the "mysteries" of Adam-God, plural marriage, or where Kolob is located. We will be saved on the doctrines and principles of the Gospel. And isn't that the key purpose the Church should have - to save people?

We do need to make sure we are not among those who are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." There is lots to know, but little of it is of true value to us in the long run.

[Guest Malcolm]

Better safe than sorry. Since anyone can be called to be a teacher or a quorum instructor we are not sure how much handle on the scriptures, teaching techniques and "crowd control" skills the person has. It is better to remain within the text of the manual. I see no issue with quoting another prophet or general authority. We must be very careful about any other source. Remember, there is no such thing as common sense.

[VisionOfLehi]

In Church or outside, I have trouble occasionally learning new doctrine.

Members who are misinformed will often contribute what they believe is official doctrine, and some times it's just not. Per my ex-girlfriend, I found out that men in the Celestial Kingdom will have an average of seven wives each. Women are so much more naturally righteous that they will vastly outnumber men.

Now, this was taught in her Young Women's class. I, with some basic research, have not been able to find anything remotely suggesting this. I was quite sure it wasn't doctrine, but it caused an argument anyway.

As a new member, moments like these can be very frustrating. I've found out that unless Scripture is directly quoted, I can't be sure of what I'm learning. I have to go home and research it. (Not that Scripture searching is a bad thing.)

That being said: My Gospel Doctrine teacher is awesome. He likes to stick to the lesson, sometimes emphasizing certain aspects (especially when time is short.) People raise their hands to ask him questions or bring up points. He's generally prepared enough that he can answer.

When he's saying what HE believes, he'll make a comment such as "Now, this is the Gospel according to Brother E." It's nice when that distinction is given.

[a-train]

If one attends a ward's Gospel Doctrine Class and it seems to be very rigid, it may be that there has already been a lot of false doctrine and speculation in class and the strictness is an effort to bring the lessons into their proper gospel subjects.

I must admit, as a teacher, I never just read the lesson. I usually spent more time with the scriptures in the lesson than the text.

The real issue here is that a good teacher needs to bring about lively discussion on the topics at hand, if they are struggling, good students who know the lesson can help by asking thought provoking questions which are answered by the lesson.

What role does the Holy Ghost play in teaching a lesson and how can a teacher take the most advantage of the LORD's Spirit in that capacity?

-a-train

[a-train]

I found out that men in the Celestial Kingdom will have an average of seven wives each. Women are so much more naturally righteous that they will vastly outnumber men.

When confronted by something like this, politely ask: 'Where can I read about this?'

-a-train