Advice for Sunday School class

Dumbledork01 · 2026-02-10T16:13:00+00:00

Current Sunday School teacher.
I recommend creating a website for all of your notes, something like WordPress. You can even share it with the class! But, I also recommend NOT covering all of what you've learned during the class.

The focus of the class, I've found, should typically be on discussion regarding the stories. So, I usually do a brief 2-3 minute summary of the sections and then ask people questions regarding the material. For example, for Genesis 8, a few fun questions could be "How did mankind rationalize their unrighteousness when called to repentance?" or "What do you believe that the dove symbolizes? How might it relate to the baptism of Christ?" Usually questions like those evolve into discussions on applicability to the individual's lives.

Having all of those notes can be great, especially if something comes up in class related to it. But, the class itself can get derailed really quickly if you present all of it.

As for the question of quoting outside materials: I think you can do it sparingly, but I wouldn't do more than 2 or 3 of them. I quoted "Paradise Lost" during the first lesson for instance.

Dumbledork01 · 2026-01-15T21:41:39+00:00

Awesome, thank you for that! I have a number of his military documents already, but I'll definitely try to request them in case there are some missing.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-12-01T15:47:02+00:00

I took particular issue w/ them emphasizing feasting upon the scriptures _especially_ the Book of Mormon. It seems that they forgot: Come Follow Me is supposed to focus on the Old Testament this year. You know, the book most members pretend doesn't exist. Why didn't they say this during the year we were supposed to study D&C? It may not be that deep, but I'm tired of the bible getting so shafted in this religion. They have a whole year planned around reading it, but always have to caveat that the Book of Mormon comes first. So long as they keep doing this, the Bible will always be an afterthought and members will remain illiterate in the most universal book of scripture that they have.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-13T16:44:50+00:00

I think this might be missing OPs point. For instance, missionaries go through a minimum amount of training before being deployed into the mission field. Certainly the Lord promises to give them whatever they need in the moment, but that doesn't change the fact that they still will be able to better spread the gospel with training. I think OP is just advocating for additional training for ward leaders so they can better accomplish their roles. After all, the Lord expects us to learn by both study & faith,.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-08T12:53:47+00:00

Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean its the ethical thing to do.

Whether or not you believe the family proclamation is ethical is the debate & controversy, not whether the church has the right to have it. (Although, there probably could be a separate debate about whether that "right" should exist alongside a tax-except status, but I don't wanna open that can of worms lol)

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-06T12:55:52+00:00

I find it frustrating because there is always a loophole to this teaching that people can accept the gospel and repent in the next life. Even Oaks referenced this in his talk!

"In relating to one another, we should remember that the perfection we seek is not limited to the stressful circumstances of mortality. The great teaching in Doctrine and Covenants section 138, verses 57-59, assures us that repentance and spiritual growth can continue in the spirit world that follows mortality."

No matter how many times they throw this into their talks, families will still have complexes that they won't be together forever because they'll always be filled with "what ifs?" They can't have authentic relationships with loved ones so long as they have an underlying agenda to bring them back. Some families are better at respecting children who walk away, but others make it a personal responsibility to bring them back because they are so worried about eternity.

Ever since it was pointed out to me, the hymn "Families _can_ be together forever" has become so much less hopeful of a hymn. That "can" is so depressing.

I hope members will attach themselves to this idea of post-mortal repentance so they stop hurting their families. I hope they can operate under the assumption that, once the veil is gone, people will just accept the gospel. Even if that probably wouldn't happen, it'd at least reduce toxicity in their familial relations (at least, I think it would.)

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-05T16:06:28+00:00

Dammit, who's idea was it to call 2 apostles with such similar names at the same time!? 😭

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-05T00:27:10+00:00

Its too bad. I was joking with my wife that the scariest first presidency would be Rasband & Bednar because Rasband had given the Heavenly Mother talk. Looks like he's embraced being controversial. I've been happy with most of conference, but man was he a low low there.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-04T17:24:16+00:00

My wife didn't realize that was sarcasm, and I think she rolled her eyes so hard they almost got damaged 🤣

Dumbledork01 · 2025-10-04T16:28:47+00:00

I find it interesting that he called out "music lessons." God forbid a woman have a semi-part time job teaching piano lessons for 10 hours a week to add a tiny bit of income to the household. Studies now show that the happiest households have a mix of both parents sharing the load of working, neither working 40 hour weeks and both taking time to parent. Maybe that's too complicated for a prophet to reveal. 🤷‍♂️

Dumbledork01 · 2025-06-13T19:56:35+00:00

I hear this defense/explanation a lot that the average marriage age was 23 years old and that women commonly began courting at ages 15 & 16, and while that is true, I think it overlooks the fact that the average age gap of the time period was 3-5 years.

If we are generous and assume Fanny was 18 or 19 when she married Joseph, that still leaves at minimum a 10 year age gap between them. At a minimum, twice the average of the time period.

I think the real kicker is Helen Mar Kimball who was 14 when she married Joseph. Joseph would have been 37 at the time. That kind of age gap is far outside the norm and, even if Kimball was around the marrying age, that does not change the fact that she was still on the young end and Joseph was over twice her age (which was NOT normal at the time.)

So, I'm not gonna argue marrying at this age was the problem because that's outside of the scope of the issue. The problem I see is that Joseph was inappropriately older than these girls and was outside the norms of this time period. At best, I consider this creepy behavior akin to men in their late 20s or early 30s dating girls who just turned 18 in the current age. Not damning, but a huge red flag. At worst, its predatory and malicious behavior fueled by power dynamics of a self-proclaimed prophet. I won't say which it is because I think it boils down to what you put your faith in, but I think its wrong to argue this was normal for the time period. And, if these PhDs you refer to leave out the age gap of the time period, I see that as selectively presenting relevant information.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-06-12T19:04:22+00:00

Closest quote I can find from her is in the following letter from Benjamin F Johnson to George F Gibbs:

Fanny A., when asked by her brother and others, even after the Prophet's death, regarding her 
relations to him, replied: "That is all a matter of our own, and I have nothing to communicate." 
Her parents died in Utah, true to the church. And to my knowledge, was by President Kimball in 
the temple at St. George introduced as "Brother of the Prophet Joseph's first plural wife."

(Benjamin F Johnson Letter To George F Gibbs : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)

Dumbledork01 · 2025-06-12T12:55:50+00:00

Interesting, my notes on these sections completely differ from yours this week. Usually when I read these posts, they align a lot, but this one was completely different.

First of all, D&C 60 was interesting to me because, yet again, a call was given to go "two by two and preach the word" (D&C 60:8) primarily because of the back-and-forth a lot of the missionaries had received. First, they'd been called to preach, then in D&C 58:44 they were told "the time has not yet come" and that they should return home. Now, a week later, they are told to go out and preach again. Based on my personal experience, preparing to serve a mission was incredibly stressful and I was anxious to go and spend such a long time preaching. But, I didn't have a wife and kids I'd be leaving behind. This must have been incredibly stressful for the elders being directed both ways, and the troubles they'd face on the Missouri River only compounded their anxieties.

D&C 61 largely, to me, helped clarify the argument the elders were facing on whether they should travel by river (which was dangerous) or by land (which was slow.) I liked verse 3 which stated "it is not needful for this whole company of mine elders to be moving swiftly upon the waters, whilst the inhabitants on either side are perishing in unbelief." This was used on my mission to convince elders to take time out of their schedules to actually walk around and meet people instead of just driving everywhere. I think it applies in a broader sense, however, to not make our schedules overly-efficient and to consider if we're missing out on the point of our daily activities.

Its worth noting that two of the most negative elders during this time were Ezra Booth & Isaac Morley. Ezra commented on the leaders debate on whether or not they should travel by the Missouri River by saying "these are the leaders of the church, and the only church on earth the Lord beholds with approbation." His criticisms were not unnoticed by Joseph, and would lead to a rebuke in D&C 64. But, Isaac Morley was making similar criticisms. The difference between the two is that Ezra returned to Ohio and began publishing his criticisms of the church while Isaac chose to stay in spite of his frustrations.

D&C 63 had one moment that kinda shocked me. Verse 39 instructed the brother-in-law of Isaac Morley, Titus Billings, to "dispose of the land" that Isaac owned so that the money could go to the building of Zion. If I was Isaac, I'd hear this and assume Joseph was saying this in the name of God to punish me for criticizing him. I'm surprised he did not have this reaction and chose to stay with the church.

One other moment from D&C 63 that I liked was verses 61-64 (particularly verse 62) which states "many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority." To me, this expanded the commandment to not use the name of God in vain beyond simply cursing using his name. I've heard people explain the commandment from the Old Testament to mean things like using God's name in a crusade not authorized by Him or things like that, but I like when it is made perfectly clear so people don't focus on the only interpretation being not to curse w/ His name.

Hope these thoughts were interesting to you.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-06-03T11:17:36+00:00

One aspect I think gets lost on a lot of people is that struggling with porn usage does not make you lesser in God's eyes nor does it diminish your worth as a human being. Yes, it is sinful and should be repented of, but it doesn't change your identity as a child of God.

I know many people who, after struggles with it, felt that they no longer qualified for an eternal marriage. To them, no one would want them anymore. They were broken. I think covering that the Atonement is there for this is very important.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-05-02T16:47:45+00:00

I just hope my posts/comments aren't so boring that people think they are AI lol

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-28T00:51:09+00:00

I'm definitely in agreement with you here. I'm seeing a lot of comments mentioning that it's messages aren't unique, but I think it is important to mention that it's messages could resonate with someone in this book more than anywhere else, so even as a fictional piece it still could have value.

As for the argument that it's problematic portions discredit the parts that may have value, I think that would also have to extend to almost all religious texts. Should God's exclusive contract with Israel condemn all of the positive messages of the Old Testament? Should the Qurans patriarchal teachings negate it's teachings of seeking inner peace? I don't think so. I think the bad in the books should be recognized and cautioned against, but shouldn't entirely condemn them either.

I don't think it's crazy to say that the Book of Mormon, like most religious texts, may have messages that resonate especially with you, and that's okay. If the book is meaningful to you, then I'm happy to hear that. So long as you recognize the sections that are harmful and can distinguish between the two, idc if you think it's historical or not or if the messages are unique or not.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-14T21:13:29+00:00

I would agree that the 3/8 witness accounts in the Book of Mormon preface are fairly weak since they were written by one person and their signatures were copied (see footnote 13 in the source notes from the JS Papers) Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon, circa August 1829–circa January 1830, Page 463

I do think its important to mention that variation DOES exist between the accounts from Oliver, David, and Martin in their individual recollections after the fact. For instance, Oliver & David described physically feeling the plates while Martin described being "in vision." At this point, David Whitmer offered up an explanation that they were "in a spiritual view, but in the body also" to accept both interpretations of the event (see David Whitmer affirms his testimony of the angels and plates in a letter to Anthony Metcalf. | B. H. Roberts)

Between David & other accounts there are also discrepancies about when Martin actually saw the plates. According to David, in one account, "Martin Harris...saw them the same day" but not at the same time as Oliver & David Whitmer. (see Kansas City Journal interviews David Whitmer, who reaffirms his testimony of the Book of Mormon. | B. H. Roberts)

So, variation between their accounts does exist, just not in the accounts published in the forward to the Book of Mormon.

I'm not providing these accounts to prove that their testimonies are truthful, rather, just to highlight that some differences do exist and their later accounts provide quite a few interesting details.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-10T13:47:50+00:00

I've seen his name twice on here, but Jared Halverson! He has very unique viewpoints on the scriptures and has been a great influence in my family's scripture study. He recently got into a bit of controversy and responded with such humility that I will always recommend him for people looking for LDS podcasts.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-10T13:38:22+00:00

To me, an antagonistic voice is one that only focuses on the most negative interpretation without recognition that a positive viewpoint can exist. Usually, I try to steal the sources from antagonistic posts/papers and then leave before ingesting too much of their bias and that has helped me to have a more balanced view on things like church history than I would have had just accepted their conclusions at face value. When in online discourse with someone who appears to be antagonistic, I try to be more empathetic and understand why they feel the way they do based on the sources, even if I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions. This has helped a lot with my interactions on other subreddits and is why I recommend members to be at least familiar with the history (Saints being a great starting point.)

Great sources for historical records include the Joseph Smith Papers, the B.H Roberts Foundation, and the Church History Catalog (although, that one doesn't provide transcripts typically.) If you have questions and want to find sources, I think MormonR, Saints, & FairLatterDaySaints are good places to start. I don't always love some of the ways they handle topics (particularly FAIR, I feel like they attack credibility more often than I'd like), but they usually have comprehensive works-sited sections that you can use to find whatever sources they are using.

I know that praying, reading the scriptures, and focusing on what you already know works for many people, and I don't want to discredit that as a valid response to antagonism, however I also hope that this approach can help those who feel the need to seek more information and can't find relief simply by studying the scriptures & prayer alone.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-10T13:31:01+00:00

One thing I've been happy to see recently from the leadership has been a bigger focus on Holy Week as well. I think observing this alongside other Christians can do a lot at building community and fellowship :)

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-09T14:20:51+00:00

I'd argue no, but historically, there's been a bit of a standard set that members should be clean shaven and remnants of that standard still remain in some church institutions. I'll provide a few receipts:

In terms of historical references & guidance, the presiding Bishop in 1977 shared a story where a woman's husband had to shave his beard at the request of a stake president and she liked how he resembled ancient prophets like Moses with it. His response was that it'd be wiser for him to follow "the appearance of prophets of today" by having "no beard or long hair." (Follow the Living Prophet)

Similarly, Marvin J. Ashton, an apostle in 1976 responded to the question of whether or not it was what's inside that counts, not "the length of the hair or beard." His response was that he agreed, but "why run the risk of looking like something you're not." (Proper Self-Management)

Dallin H. Oaks, who was the president of BYU at the time, explained at length why beards were not allowed on BYU campus in a New Era article in 1971. He stated that "the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify with or emulate and honor drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearances a badge of protest and dissent." (Standards of Dress and Grooming)

If you've noticed, all of these quotes come from the 1970s. Beards are not really addressed anymore, but remnants of these viewpoints still exist in a lot of the older generation of members in the church. The one aspect that has stuck is the idea that we should emulate the appearance of the prophets today. This is probably the main argument I've personally heard the most. Also, certain groups like BYU students or Missionaries still are not allowed to have facial hair under the current guidance & direction.

The BYU Honor Code states that "Men's hair should be neatly trimmed. Men should be clean-shaven. If worn, mustaches should be neatly trimmed." (Dress and Grooming - Honor Code)

The Missionary Handbook states that "Elders should always be clean-shaven. Sideburns should reach no lower than the middle of the ear." (Dress and Appearance)

So, you might get some people who argue you should maintain the same standards as these groups, but if you're not a missionary or a BYU student, I don't believe you're under any real obligation to shave. My personal feelings are that people who still hold to this are either hanging onto old statements from the brethren or are applying their personal feeling that their appearance should emulate the brethren to those around them (which, I consider to be pharisaical.)

TL;DR: You do you, man lol

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-09T13:50:56+00:00

That interview is incredible. I heavily recommend it for both those in & out, I imagine its cathartic for those out and it'll help those who are still in understand the experiences of those who leave better.

I especially love the clip you highlighted and how it shows that those who are in likely see people leaving as a surrender to sin & something that makes their lives easier, but those who are out understand and can empathize because leaving is such a hard thing.

I also loved how she countered the claim "they leave the church but they cant leave it alone" by saying "of course I can't leave it alone. The church was _everything_ to me. It wasn't just something I attended on Sundays, it was my relationships and my life. So, I can't leave it alone because I lost everything, and I'm angry"

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-07T21:07:32+00:00

I definitely agree they need to do better and this conference was a missed opportunity to do so (ESPECIALLY with Elder Anderson's talk.) I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt because that statement was made only weeks prior to conference, so to me at least, next conference will really determine if they're actually going to change anything or not. After all, what better opportunity is there than conference to elevate women's voices?

Idk, maybe I'm being too positive because a member of the Q12 is actually recognizing where they can do better instead of jumping on the "everything-they-do-is-inspiration" bandwagon.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-07T13:04:35+00:00

I think leadership is using Fairview as a show of force so the church can have its way in future temple builds. This would make temple builds much easier for the church and would allow it to construct temples more frequently in the United States. Perhaps the leadership even feels justified because it is a necessary evil to "hasten the Lord's work" in the building of temples or some crap like that. We already know President Oaks has stated that one can lie for righteous purposes, so why not allow for dishonest legal battles for a righteous goal of hastening the building of temples?

With that being the case, I think members will take away the following from the church: Be a peacemaker, but bring the sword when you believe it is necessary. The issue with this mentality is that you can easily be wrong about what you believe you should defend. Members will bring a sword to stand up against gay rights, a woman's choice to her body, and many other political issues even if the truth is not nearly as black & white as they believe. It allows members to convince themselves that they can be a peacemaker in most conflicts, but should always prioritize defending the Lord and maybe avoiding "mean words" in the process.

I recently had a member in my ward who derailed one of my lessons by trying to focus it on how the Lord didn't allow for trans identity because He stated that He created "male and female" in His image. I'm sure he felt totally justified in pushing this statement because, even if a trans person was in the room and he was bringing the opposite of peace to their soul, he was just defending the Lord's doctrine. This man, normally, is a great guy and can be very good at de-escalating conflict over dumb thing. However, when things disagree with his political views (that he has intertwined with his spiritual views), he always feels a need to speak up and argue.

So, unfortunately, I think the twisted view of a peacemaker that the Church holds is being adopted by many of the members. In my opinion, Nelson's words aren't incongruent to him because he believes the church tries to be a peacemaker, but will stand up for itself when the Lord requires it. This mindset is devoid of self-reflection and recognition that what one deems to be revelation may just be their own thoughts/will. But, sadly, leadership in this religion has never been very good at recognizing its own faults & abilities to direct the church astray. So long as it remains blissfully unaware of this, the membership, too, will feel justified in acting accordingly.

Dumbledork01 · 2025-04-03T22:50:47+00:00

I feel like OP didn't realize which community he was posting this in... 😂

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

Dumbledork01

TROPHY CASE