Thanks for participating. Let’s dialogue again some time.

Would you say it is a fair characterization of your position, then, that the scriptures are subordinate to the Church manuals?

Best,
TYD

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.
Gary

R. Gary, I agree with the spirit of this. Given that any given Sunday the manual provides more than enough stuff to cover in SS, we should generally avoid the places where we disagree with the manual. It’s rarely a good idea to openly criticize the manual in SS (although I won’t say it is never a good idea). I think we all agree here that the kinds of things we say as a teacher of SS should in some sense be (at least a little) more constrained than the kinds of things we would say in other places, such as our homes. At the same time Ardis raises an important point about students, and how the teacher must respond to the kinds of things a student says. I think the best classes I’ve taught were those classes where the students spoke much more than myself. Of course the teacher must decide when and how to direct the conversation.

1. Jesus Christ was resurrected and lives today.
2. He is the head of the Church.
3. His apostles and prophets have stewardship over doctrine.
4. They supervise the process of writing lesson manuals.
5. Criticism of the lesson manuals is criticism of that process.

I agree with the poster above that 5 does not follow from 4. I understand that you cited above Teaching, No Greater Call. That seems to be at odds with the way in which the current manual describes itself–the focus is on the scriptures and the manual serves as a tool (it even notes that we can use “commentaries and nonscriptural sources of information” although we should be judicious in choosing these). This kind of language does not lead me to believe that the manual sees itself as the only tool for understanding the scriptures in SS. Not that we should freely use other material, but it seems to me that where the tool does not work as well as other tools (in understanding the scriptures) or other tools work equally well, we should use those tools or at least let the students know that other interpretations (i.e., tools) could be legitimate ways of understanding a scriptural passage. If the measure of a successful lesson is about helping members come unto Christ, there is nothing wrong with allowing multiple ways to come unto him in some matters.

I think this conversation has helped me to see more that a fundamental difference is that some LDSs value the openness imposed by our limitations and others see it as a threat to unity and so seek to minimize it. This is more of an observation than a judgement.

Openness does not mean that every opinion is legitimate. Indeed, it raises the question of how we determine what a legitimate opinion is.

To be clear, the OP was about explaining why on the one hand we seem to have wide latitude in belief, but on the other hand an openness doesn’t seem to cohere with our experience in Mormon culture. My explanation for this is that openness, while present, is not desired by most LDSs.

The conversation has since moved to how to handle this openness in SS. In this regard I don’t advocate forwarding personal opinion in place of the SS manual. Instead, and similar to your approach, I advocate recognizing a multiplicity of interpretations where they are viable. To put forth the manual as the only viable interpretation in every instance is to ignore the openness that imposes itself on us.

And it would never have started if Bro. K. had admitted that his interpretation wasn’t the only possible one.

Bro. K., by the way, is the teacher whose dogmatism I have to dance around when alternating with him in teaching Gospel Doctrine.

Indeed. We’ve discussed this before, framed in the “philosophies of men mingled with scripture” rhetoric, the point being that every reading is an interpretation or “philosophy of man.”

Or I could raise the AA question “how important is it?” Which actually a more loaded question than you’d suppose, I guess. Because if I think I’m right—and it could be about something kind of stupid, like when I defended Lot’s wife (Hey! Shut up, you guys! It’s hard to turn your back on your kids!)—well, the fight is on.

Some Sunday School teachers are better than others in leading a discussion and avoiding the brawl. Some just never allow dissent or discussion, thereby avoiding the brawl, but also avoiding growth.

And Artis, if the manual is really silent on something, then we should feel some freedom to speculate (as long as it is clear that is what we are doing) or say “We don’t know”. We also should be careful that things don’t break down into a debate contest.