I too, have struggled with the “outside source” counsel in the CN article and the new manuals introduction. Especially given the subject matter.

I am sure it is incredibly difficult to “write” a manual that can be used in the smallest branch in Lower Swabovia as well as in the largest ward on the East Bench of Salt Lake. And then to say basically, “Teach from the manual, all you need is here,” only compounds the challenge.

I see the new manuals as a great tool to generate discussions about the scriptures. And to explore meanings for scriptures that you may not have thought about before. It is going to be an interesting couple of years.

Do you think that generally speaking, it will be harder for Relief Society teachers to teach from this new manual, or for Priesthood teachers?

I can’t read anyone’s minds, but I don’t think the ban on “please read along in Alma . . .” during sacrament meeting has anything to do with our conversation here. Every effort I’ve seen at reining in outside sources has specifically mentioned the scriptures as THE place to go instead. I believe (just my opinion, though) that the “please read along” ban has to do with the nature of a worship service being distinct from a Sunday School lesson.

I don’t think the intro the GP manual says anything different re this topic than any other recent manual. I do think the CN article goes a little farther, but I’m disinclined to give it that much weight, given that when the leadership wants to reach the Saints, they don’t do it through unsigned articles in the CN, which the vast majority of members never even see. I do think that article is a response to the new GP manual, which at first blush might seem “boring” or “basic” and might send people googling for some juicy Parley P. Pratt quotes to spice things up. After teaching my lesson this week, I feel that the very basic doctrine we covered and the very basic questions I asked led to a good experience, almost entirely because of the testimony-filled comments of the members of the class.

I have always tried to be extremely careful to stay *very* orthodox in what doctrine I teach. (Those who have been reading my posts here for a long time might be on the floor laughing, but I consider a blog an appropriate place for crazy speculation, so I do that here. Not at church.)

Know that I’m one who recognizes the difference between a teacher doing what was condemned by that unsigned Church News article and a teacher who engages her class with appropriate illustrations.

“If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using this book, do not substitute outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words in the book. As appropriate, use personal experiences and articles from Church magazines to supplement the lessons. For more on this subject, see Teaching, No Greater Call, pages 50–59.”

Let me break that down:
–Substitute means to exchange one thing for another. If there had been material in the lesson that said “use this for an introduction” and I used the Fulghum story instead, that would be a substitution. But the manual as written does not contain an introduction. TNGC makes clear that lessons need introductions (“attention getters”). We have been told repeatedly that we are not to read the lesson verbatim–to teach out of our hearts and not out of our books–and so obviously we would need to provide our own introductory material for this lesson.

–I believe the story is very much “true” to the scriptures and the manual in that it hits the same themes, particularly re coming closer to God by knowing Him.

–I read this story and it had a huge impact on me. I shared *my personal experience* with the Fulghum story when I taught the lesson.

–You’ll note the reference to the Teaching, No Greater Call book.

If, on the other hand, you didn’t really read and consider the lesson, but instead jumped on the introductory paragraph with a pharisaical “Ah, ha! She’s breaking the rules! I’m going to tell!” then YOU are the one who is out of tune.

If someone in the class, not the teacher, had commented on a point in the lesson by saying, “You know, before hearing the Restored Gospel I was all mixed up in my ideas of God — almost as mixed up as Robert Fulghum said he was as a child when … [summarize story],” would you expect someone to jump up and say “Stop! You can’t say that! That isn’t in the manual!” or would you smile and nod and think, perhaps, about your own early misunderstanding about the nature of God?

If you’re a teacher, frankly, I suspect you bore the pants off everyone in your class, because if you practice what you preach, you read the manual word for word lest some unauthorized illustration creep in. That’s no way to teach.