- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I posted this post on the NOM list, but wanted ideas from this list as well. So sorry for the duplication (to those who read both lists). Here goes:
I’m scheduled to teach a lesson in RS on July 22nd. It is two confernce talks from April Conference – one by Elder Hellstrom (? – may have spelled his name wrong) and one by Elder Oaks. The first talk is on the Church and the Gospel. The second is on Sacrifice.
I’m ambivalent about teaching the lesson, as I had very mixed feelings when I first accepted this teaching calling.
I taught one lesson in May – that actually went well, because I focused on asking the sisters to relate their early experiences when they first knew there was a God. Most who talked about their experiences “just knew” early on (before the age of 6) that there was “something” out there, and did not necessarily need to be taught in Primary, etc.
How would you teach this lesson?
My initial thought is to try to draw a distnction between the Church and the Gospel – the Church being the organization (which in my opion is what causes most of the problems/issues that lead to us questioning the beliefs). The Gospel is the way of life, which includes the “two great commandments” of Loving God and loving your neighbor. But according to the scriptures – particulary what Jesus says in 3rd Nephi (cited in one of the threads the other day), it also includes the “first principles and ordinances” of Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Holy Ghost. So, even if I am able to make the distinciton between the Church and living the Gospel, the interpretaion of the term, the Gospel still leads to the Mormon belief system of “Keep the Commandments” (which isn’t just limited to the commandments of Love, but includes everything else – W of W, tithing, read scriptures, go to your meetings, sustain the brethern, etc.).
So what do all of you think? What is the difference between the Church and the Gospel? (Or is there a difference?) And would trying to draw a distinction be one way to approach the lesson?
The other talk – Elder Oaks – is on sacrifice – and basically talks some about the Atonement, then of ways we can sacrifice (through service, etc.)
Any ideas about Nom’ing this concept would also be appreciated.
Thanking you in advance for your ideas. I really do need help with this.
Queen Esther
In my simple mind the Gospel is the two great commandments. Everything else is an addition. The following link is to a compilation of my favorite quotes from the world-wide training session in November 2010: http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-favorite-quotes-from-world-wide.html Many of them deal directly or implicitly with that topic – and they come from a leadership training session, so they will be seen as authoritative even by the most staunchly conservative members. My favorites for this topic are:
Quote:We have to decide what counts. The Savior didn’t count statistics and numbers. What counted to him was caring, love, service, ministering, blessing, etc. We need to make a new beginning in the Church and count as He counts.” (Pres. Julie Beck)
Pres. Clark once said that too much regimentation can remove revelation. We are in danger of that happening in the Church. (Pres. Packer)
There is a danger of establishing the Church and not the Gospel. Planting the Gospel in our hearts MUST accompany having the Church in our lives. Busy-ness can’t replace testimony. (Pres. Packer)
Other issues aside, Pres. Packer’s quotes are a great reminder that nobody is a one-dimensional stick figure who deserves to be pigeon-holed and stereotyped based on some comments while others are ignored. Yes, he is a lightening rod when it comes to comments on human sexuality, but he also has been one of the most forceful advocates of positions like expressed above for multiple decades. That’s easy to forget sometimes.
cwald wrote:The Gospel and the Church
By Ronald E. Poelman
GC 1984
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2600407/posts ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2600407/posts You took the words right out of my mouth.
:thumbup: This will probably be an unwelcome perspective, but sometimes “NOM”ing a lesson is subversive if you are given one basic idea to teach and you subvert it to something else. I just skimmed the Hallstrom talk again, and I don’t think his point is to separate the church and the gospel the way Poelman did. His point is that full activity in the church is not adequate. You have to do all this stuff, and at the same time go beyond it to a deeper understanding of the divine that includes not just a testimony of the church and its structure, but a sure knowledge of the divinity of God and Christ and the reality of the atonement and the vital importance of the ordinances. That sure knowledge will lead to doing even more to support the church and its teachings (thinking of the intangibles like serving other members, FHE, and not just supporting the programs).
My feeling is that if you can’t find a way to teach the spirit of the lesson in some way, you shouldn’t teach it.
Coming from the inactive guy who just finished a wonderful cup of coffee, if it were me I wouldn’t be asking strangers on the internet about this. I would read the talks through two or three times and pray about it and see what inspiration you get and follow that.
The way I would be comfortable with it would be to tread lightly on the church part, make the point that the church and the gospel should be in harmony, the church exists to support the gospel, and mostly focus on his list of three fundamental ways to have the gospel be our foundation. I think you could possibly ask a very StayLDS question like “is it enough for your testimony to be centered on merely the church and its leaders? What happens if the leaders say something you believe to be wrong or are caught in mistakes or transgressions? How can you center your testimony on Christ and not just the bishop, stake president, or even President of the church” and just let the lesson teach itself at that point.
So, considering the subject line, don’t teach it as “the gospel vs the church”. Teach it as “the gospel is greater and more fundamental than merely the church”, thinking of a mathematical superset, which is almost the same thing, but follows his point better. Good point BobDixon….unfortunately, I think you are correct. Quote:
I just skimmed the Hallstrom talk again, and I don’t think his point is to separate the church and the gospel the way Poelman did. His point is that full activity in the church is not adequate. You have to do all this stuff, and at the same time go beyond it to a deeper understanding of the divine that includes not just a testimony of the church and its structure, but a sure knowledge of the divinity of God and Christ and the reality of the atonement and the vital importance of the ordinances. That sure knowledge will lead to doing even more to support the church and its teachings (thinking of the intangibles like serving other members, FHE, and not just supporting the programs).My feeling is that if you can’t find a way to teach the spirit of the lesson in some way, you shouldn’t teach it.
btw — where I have i seen you posting recently? NOM? Facebook?
I agree with your conclusion about how this lesson should be taught, BobDixon. I think it is a great insight, and I’m glad you shared it. Having said that, the following line is one I need to address directly
as an admin: Quote:if it were me I wouldn’t be asking strangers on the internet about this.
Drop that line of response here.
Period.Nobody here is insisting someone else believe exactly as he or she believes. Nobody here is saying their suggestions must be followed. Discussing questions and seeking support, however,
almostno matter what the questions are, are two of the purposes for which this site was created. It’s what we do, so, as an admin, I’m telling you: Don’t tell participants here not to do it.
Period.Also, just to point out the blatantly obvious,
it’s hypocritical to tell someone not to ask us (strangers) a question online and then provide your own (stranger) answer online.It also is not appreciated, since it implies you have the correct answer and everyone else doesn’t have anything of worth or value to contribute. That won’t fly here. It’s not how we operate. Period.Again, I really like your insight about this lesson and hope you can continue to participate here productively.
/back to the OP, the question and suggestions from anyone here who wants to provide them
To be fair Ray I don’t read Bob’s comment in the same way you do. I see it as offering a different perspective, not urging or implying that his response is better than anyone else’s. I think everyone understands we listen to and respect all perspectives here as food for thought.
With orson a bit on this one, ray. Understand your point, but it may well be that preparing for a church lesson does require that we set aside our personal agenda and curiousity, and focus on the lesson material and what we feel about it. I think Bob’s suggestions are good.
I think there is a difference between ‘what is taught’ and ‘what we believe’.
My feeling in teaching a gospel lesson, participating in classes, and giving talks, is that we constrain our selves to the intersection of ‘what is taught’ and ‘what we believe’ (Intersection is the subset where ‘what is taught’ = ‘what I believe’). Since ‘what is taught’ is in the lesson manual, and ‘what I believe’ is, well, painfully apparent to me; I’m not sure i need to go to the internet to prepare a lesson. Just my opinion – and why I think Bob’s comment was apropo.
There are things that are taught that I no longer believe, so I don’t teach them. For example, in teaching the book of mormon, there is a lesson that tells the history of the book of mormon translation. Some of the things ‘taught’ are not true. What I believe to be true (head in hat) isn’t taught. The important thing is to find that intersection. I believe that the book of mormon is inspired. Therefore in evaluating the phrase “Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of god”, I cannot say that in its entirety, because i believe he did not translate any text. I could say, in harmony with my belief and ‘what is taught’ that “Joseph Smith brought forth the book of mormon by the gift and power of god.”. I’m still accurate to ‘what is taught’, but I’m now consistent with ‘what I believe’.
My job is NOT to point out the cognitive dissonance between ‘what is taught’ and ‘what is (most likely) true’ or ‘what I personally believe’. I know that may be painful for people to accept, but I believe it’s part of the rules of being an active participant in a strongly correlated church. I know that many of us feel that allowing a person to continue to confirm a false testimony is a bad thing, but I trust that in time, this person will mature in faith to the point that they will learn ‘the truth’ at the right time. Not my job right now.
There are limits, thought, to how far I will go. For example, If I were to teach a lesson quoting GBH about how we should actively oppose gay marriage legislation and actively promote ‘defense of the family’ — which lesson I do not think exists at this time — I would have to withdraw from the lesson. In fact, I will not be present in a room where that is taught. I am prepared to stand up in firm opposition to this wherever and whenever it is spoken. I’m also willing to accept any consequences that come from this position. I think there are some things on which silence is wrong.
But fortunately, most of the teachings of the church are not in this category.
As I said, I really like the comment. Without that exact line, I would have no problem with it. “Period.” 🙂 If all that was meant was, “I wouldn’t ask that question. I’d figure it out on my own – but, since you asked online . . .” I’ll just disagree with that meaning strongly (since I would ask that question) – even as I like the answer that followed.
Bob, you’re new here, so it’s hard to read meaning sometimes – no matter how hard we try. If my comment was misdirected, I apologize.
Old-Timer wrote:Having said that, the following line is one I need to address directly
as an admin: Quote:if it were me I wouldn’t be asking strangers on the internet about this.
Drop that line of response here.
Period.Nobody here is insisting someone else believe exactly as he or she believes. Nobody here is saying their suggestions must be followed. Discussing questions and seeking support, however,
almostno matter what the questions are, are two of the purposes for which this site was created. It’s what we do, so, as an admin, I’m telling you: Don’t tell participants here not to do it.
Period.Also, just to point out the blatantly obvious,
it’s hypocritical to tell someone not to ask us (strangers) a question online and then provide your own (stranger) answer online.It also is not appreciated, since it implies you have the correct answer and everyone else doesn’t have anything of worth or value to contribute. That won’t fly here. It’s not how we operate. Period.Again, I really like your insight about this lesson and hope you can continue to participate here productively.
/back to the OP, the question and suggestions from anyone here who wants to provide them
I’m not really convinced I did any of the stuff I was accused of here. I was just trying to make a suggestion. If I was trying to say “don’t do this” or “you’re an idiot for asking strangers” I would have said that. What I actually said was that this wasn’t necessarily a course of action I would have followed.
Period. 
I saw your last comment on this already and am not planning to lose any sleep over this. Your site, your rules. I don’t think I’ve tried to post a single thing at By Common Consent that wasn’t moderated, so it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been shut down on a more positive site, although to be honest my usual reputation is that of being pretty respectful of people I disagree with. I’m still honestly trying to figure all this out and am not sure I ever will.
cwald wrote:btw — where I have i seen you posting recently? NOM? Facebook?
I don’t post at NOM much any more. NOM is really a gateway drug and I’m past the early stages of shock and disillusionment.
I post on Facebook at times under my own name, but not on church stuff. Just social stuff, with infrequent exceptions.
I want to thank everyone who posted responses to my question about teaching Elder Hallstrom’s talk about the Gospel and the Church. It’s very helpful to have suggestions of what direction to take. BobDixon, thank you for your comments. As others have said, you provided a different perspective and it does give me some things to ponder about – as far as finding “the deeper understanding” that is in the talk.
That said, I was taken aback by your statement below and appreciated Ray’s intervention as a moderator:
BobDixon wrote:Coming from the inactive guy who just finished a wonderful cup of coffee, if it were me I wouldn’t be asking strangers on the internet about this. I would read the talks through two or three times and pray about it and see what inspiration you get and follow that..
If I were to take your statement to heart, it would make me think twice about posting on this forum. I am fairly new to this forum and the NOM forum. I’ve seen several posts on NOM where members have asked for suggestions on how to teach a particular lesson. I therefore thought (and still think) that it is okay to do this. But for you to say “I wouldn’t be asking strangers on the Internet about this” gives pause.
In your last post, you explained that you didn’t mean it to come across in the way that I (and apparently Ray) took it:
BobDixon wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I was just trying to make a suggestion. If I was trying to say “don’t do this” or “you’re an idiot for asking strangers” I would have said that. What I actually said was that this wasn’t necessarily a course of action I would have followed.
I appreciate your clarification, as well as the time you took to read the talk provide some well thought out ideas about the meaning of the concepts in the lesson. Thank you.
Queen Esther
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.