- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My husband is teaching a priesthood lesson soon and his assigned conference talk is The Correct Name of the Church by Russell M. Nelson. He tends to be a nuanced teacher and tries his best to find ways to teach the lessons in ways that can be useful in people’s lives. He and I are having a VERY tough time finding anything useful in this talk. There are so many extreme statements Nelson uses and it’s just covering the same thing over and over ‘use the full name of the church’. He’s trying to figure out what to teach and what questions to ask to stretch this over a whole class period. Any ideas will probably help because our brains are hurting haha here’s a link to the talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng Eta: I thought I would also add that my husband is a very logical thinker and so he is trying to find ways to also make logical sense of this talk and find truths in it along with making it useful for people’s lives.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I would actually begin by going back to the use of Mormon roots. Starting with Joseph Smith’s article in Times and Seasons. Maybe even explain the history of it’s useage prior to Joseph reclaiming and reframing it for the church members use. The power of taking something derogatory and co-opting it for something good. From there I would maybe even express my personal struggle over the firmness of President Nelson’s insistence. Especially in light of (history again) President Benson’s encouragement and reminding members of the song ‘I am a Mormon Boy”. Maybe even have someone read the lyrics. Then move on to touching on President Hinckley and Elder Nelsons gentle public opinion differences fourteen years ago in General Conference.
At this point, I would move to wondering aloud, have you ever had something nag at you for 14 years. I would point out it appears that the name issue has for President Nelson. (You don’t have to insinuate it’s bad or good, just a fact). I would then take it to the positive points of being more Christ centered. Taking parts of “Mormon” meaning ‘More Good” as Joseph Smith implied and “The Church of Jesus Christ” having the potential to create space for “More Christ Good.”
After that, I would move into Christ like attributes. Leave the talk alone. End on a love of Jesus Christ note. It’s factual, instructive, and with the emphasis on Christ and not President Nelson, either way, a gospel message is delivered.
I skipped last conference and digested this talk via memes. After reading it for the first time. đŻ đŻ I’ll start off with a light post.
Quote:âSome years ago while serving in the office of public affairs of the Church in Mexico, [a companion and I] were invited to participate in a radio talk show. ⌠[One of the program directors] asked [us], âWhy does the Church have such a long name? âŚâ
âMy companion and I smiled at such a magnificent question and then proceeded to explain that the name of the Church was not chosen by man. It was given by the Savior. ⌠The program director immediately and respectfully responded…â
Quote:Why did the Savior give his church such a long name?
I mean, it’s the next logical question, right?
Quote:If someone should ask, âAre you a Mormon?â you could reply, âIf you are asking if I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yes, I am!â
Except for the lines toward the end where Nelson coaches people how to respond to questions like, “Are you Mormon/LDS?” the talk was exclusively focused on the official name of the church itself. Witnessing people’s takeaway from the talk, I thought the talk was on trying to excise the word “Mormon” from the culture, but all Nelson really talked about was the official name of the church. I take that to mean that the someone-said-Mormon police should pump their brakes a little and allow for people to use the word Mormon colloquially and only concern themselves (if at all) when referring to the church itself in a formal manner.
“Are you Mormon?”
“Yes.”
Feels a lot less… smug or pious than answering in a manner that attempts to correct the person asking the question. If we’re talking missionary work, I’d rather continue to have interactions with someone like Ammon (Great Spirit) than a person that I felt was nitpicking.
Quote:Every Sunday as we worthily partake of the sacrament, we make anew our sacred promise to our Heavenly Father that we are willing to take upon us the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. We promise to follow Him, repent, keep His commandments, and always remember Him. When we omit His name from His Church, we are inadvertently removing Him as the central focus of our lives.
Taking the Saviorâs name upon us includes declaring and witnessing to othersâthrough our actions and our wordsâthat Jesus is the Christ. Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us âMormonsâ that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for Him even in the name by which His Church is called?
Except when I go to work on Monday and people wanting my attention call me nibbler, I don’t typically stop them and tell them they should be referring to me as Jesus Christ. I’d ask the class what the spirit of this request was. I’d hope that they come up with the answer that it is to help us be more Christ centered. Then I’d discard the rest of that talk and spend the entire class discussing things that could help the culture be more Christ centered.
As Nelson says, taking upon myself the savior’s name is done through my actions and words. My example of going to work on Monday underscores how taking the savior’s name upon myself is not something literal. The talk likes to focus on the literalness of the name of the church, but I think we should be more focused on the actions and the words that exemplify Christ.
I wouldn’t shy away from this subject… at church we talk about leaders too much. There are some Sundays where I only hear “Christ” mentioned at the close of prayers. If we want to be more Christ centered, what has more effect? Shifting focus from prophets, leaders, and the church itself to Christ or getting ranty about the name “Mormon?”
Granted remembering whose church it is can be a good first step, provided we don’t stop there but continue to make Christ the center of the culture.
I teach SS and one thing I noticed this week was how much more time I had than usual. A normal SS lesson usually occupied about 40 minutes. A normal PH lesson was much shorter; last time I taught in there I only had about 25 minutes after PH Opening Exercises and then announcements in the quorum. But I think that most of that goes away now. My SS lesson on Sunday was 50 minutes. Even though I’m a guy who typically has more to say than time, I found myself feeling I had more time than I had planned for. I can’t imagine giving a one-topic lesson like the name of the Church for 40-50 minutes! Perhaps use an old trick:
“I have prepared a full and thorough lesson for today on the assigned topic. However, as I stand here, I feel impressed to set aside my prepared lesson and instead talk about [insert a preferred topic]. I feel that someone here today is supposed to hear about that.”
In seriousness, though, I would probably focus on a couple of discussion points:
– Why would it be nice if outsiders associated our Church and our members with the full name of the Church? (This might simply lend to the idea of using the full name more, without demanding it every time).
– What are some positives and negatives that outsiders associate with the Church and our members and, regardless of the name, how can we improve our perception in the world? (No matter what we do, people are still going to think of us and refer to us as Mormons, so let’s get better about what that means to them).
FWIW, I have had multiple conversations with fully-faithful, all-in members who view this as an out-of-left-field and who-cares issue; and they brought it up, it wasn’t through my prodding.
Quote:all-in members who view this as an out-of-left-field and who-cares issue; and they brought it up, it wasn’t through my prodding.
I second that. Even family members have made the same comment.
I would consider the following ideas: a) being frank with the leadership and bowing out of the lesson; offer to do a different one.
b) Teach something sort of related to it — like how the church was organized, how people were baptized twice, who the original organizers were, their backgrounds, and then spend 5 minutes on the name of the church and Elder Nelson’s talk.
c) Don’t express any personal struggles with the name of the church. Church isn’t the place to express such concerns — the place is here or among supportive family.
1) The counsel applies ONLY to questions about the full name of the church. Using it all the time is silly. If asked, I use it once – and If I get a blank look, I use “LDS” – and if I get a blank look, I use Mormon. 2) Emphasize we need to be willing to claim our status as Christians. Using the name, reasonably, allows us to do that.
3) Modesty means being moderate and acting appropriately in different situations. Using it incentives as an identifier of our Christianity is good and modest; using it obsessively and annoyingly is immodest. So, be wise and modest, not unwise and like a jerk.
4) All of that can take 5 minutes or less. Use the rest of the time to discuss what it MEANS to be a member of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” – or what characteristics we should strive to develop when we claim that title.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.