- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was just asked to give the TFOT lesson in EQ next week, which is a recent conference address by Elder Oaks entitled “No other gods.” I had a very hard time with that talk when it was delivered live. While there is much to digest in the talk, there is a large emphasis on defending traditional marriage. I want to give the lesson in a balanced way, and without avoiding tough issues. What do you think is fair game and what should be left alone? Thoughts? richdunn wrote:I was just asked to give the TFOT lesson in EQ next week, which is a recent conference address by Elder Oaks entitled “No other gods.” I had a very hard time with that talk when it was delivered live. While there is much to digest in the talk, there is a large emphasis on defending traditional marriage. I want to give the lesson in a balanced way, and without avoiding tough issues. What do you think is fair game and what should be left alone? Thoughts?
Ouch! That’s like a kick to the head with a hob-nail boot!
I would probably be inclined to draw heavily from mormonsandgays.org
You could even use some of the “real people” videos.
It’s an official church publication and has their logo at the bottom.
Skip that part completely and focus on something else (or two or three things) Open it up for conversation and let the time fly by that way. The manuals say to be guided by the spirit, so go with what you want to teach.
I think when I get to the gay marriage parts, I’m going to show a video from mormonsandgays.org and then ask questions relating to accepting and loving those with ssa. I think there is a misconception that supporting someone who has same sex attraction or acts on those means that we are in some way sinning or not staying true to our faith. If I could have one goal for this lesson it would be to help reverse that idea. Here’s a comment on John Dehlin’s TEDx talk about being a LGBT ally that I think sums up the feelings of those who have personal misgivings about denying LGBT folks joy, and following the commandments of God:
“I am dealing with tough issues in my mind and find it difficult. In my mind the difficulty really has to be with what “the church” has taught me. I don’t see the church’s position changing anytime soon in that sex out of marriage is wrong no matter who is doing it. And 2, same sex marriages don’t fit the Mormon mold for the hereafter, so to encourage same sex marriage is, in my mind, not something I feel comfortable doing.
So how do I become a true ally when I have such a difficult time thinking my way through this conundrum??
It is plainly evident to me that the teachings of the church show that God wants us all to be happy. Your data shows that same sex marriages foster a high degree of happiness for many. So are you suggesting that I allow the church to teach one thing and that I hold to a different belief?”
Does anybody have any good ideas of discussion questions that could help address this issue?
I love the idea of focusing on supporting people who are different (a lot), but, honestly, I think you might be opening a HUGE can of worms and might end up with a firestorm. If you know the other people in the quorum well enough to avoid that, great. I can’t say, one way or another. I just think you should consider how to handle it if it starts to get out of hand – and that can happen, in a case like this, with only one member who is vocal and adamant. If you introduce the segment with something like Elder Cook’s interview from that site talking about his time as a Bishop and/or Stake President in San Francisco and how we shouldn’t shun or cast out homosexual members – and that we, of all people, ought to the be most loving toward them, it might be a good foundation.
Also, I probably would start with that part, so you can end it at any point and move on, if it starts to spiral out of control.
Ray, do you have experience with this? I don’t want to get into a debate about gay marriage, I just think the issue of accepting gays is a small way to help balance a lesson that states only the church’s position on gay marriage and warns people to obey God first. Yes. It’s an important but tricky topic. If you start by restating the Church’s definition of “ideal” marriage and then talk about how to support people who don’t have that type of marriage/family (single members, divorced members, widowed members, childless couples, gay members (and I would use that term, rather than anything that includes “same-sex attraction”), it has the potential to be a great discussion. I just think if you focus on one group only if might not go as well.
Again, I’m speaking generally here, since I don’t know the people in your quorum – or your ward leadership, if they hear that you gave a lesson focused on gay marriage, even if it isn’t.
Skip the fluff, go straight with the doctrine… Scriptures. Talk about how we can have no other Gods. While its ok to talk about defending marriage, ifs better to get people to really understand doctrine. Someone posted this on their FB. They probably made it up.
“Tolerance requires disagreement whereas love simply does not judge. If you preach tolerance, perhaps you are the hater.”
Getting tired of lessons after lessons of stories. Ugh. Or sacrament meetings. I listened last sacrament, i heard 0 scriptures quoted by 3 senior missionaries. My wife told me she heard one or two. So i will round up to 2.
Here is a baptist sermon,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CWmnaegq7Q .This is one thing the LDS has moved away from. Now we have the lessons all prepared for us.
I sometimes don’t even read the ensign but i may just to get the “topic”, after prayer/studying on the subject that topic, I write a complete lesson using only the scritptures or joseph smith. i will use other sources like ensigns etc if there is an illustration i want to make that someone has already said.
not sure this helps… There is a huge difference between loving someone, and not standing up for whats right.
Thanks for all the great wisdom. The day after I wrote my lesson, I struggled immensely with the subject. I wanted to not make it about just gay marriage. But in my mind, the talk is single-mindedly a reminder to all who accept or ally with gay marriage that they are moral cowards and in need of forgiveness. I was very bitter about it and wished I had not agreed to give the lesson. The next day, after talking w/ my wife about it, I cut out all the parts I couldn’t stomach, and decided to only mention gays once in the context of people who don’t fit the ideal of the family proclamation. My lesson would begin w/ religious tolerance based on a few lines from Elder Oaks’ talk, but based even more upon the Mormon/Evangelical dialogue of Robert L. Millet, who talked about his amazement of the life of Billy Graham, the televangelist. Then I went on to discuss how we can strengthen our relationships with our wives, and finally, how we can love and receive those who don’t fit that ideal. The response was great. The discussion centered around understanding others and wonderful stories were shared about other religious leaders, how prosyletizing can be a bad thing, and how to curb hateful speech about gays. Several people thanked me afterward and said that this was a needed discussion. I left elated and grateful, my faith restored in no small way. Ironically, before my lesson, in gospel doctrine, the lesson was about the eternal families. The teacher was an older man who was filling in, and decided to have us read the whole Family Proclamation to begin the lesson. He stopped after the first paragraph and expressed his severe distaste that Utah of all places would allow gay marriage. That was followed with a discussion about Duck Dynasty comments about gays and the lack of free speech in this country. It was night and day difference between the two classes. Interesting that that could be found in one Sunday block of church.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Your lesson was needed to counteract the other one.
I generally prefer a voice of reasonable moderation over extremism, and I think there are a LOT of members like that, even if they usually endure the extremism just because they like the people who are more willing to spout extreme views.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.