- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here are some of the more interesting quotes…not sure if I will use them, but I throw them out for discussion. What would you say in a lesson about each of these? Quote:As another example [of opposition in all things], there are many things in our early Church history, such as what Joseph Smith did or did not do in every circumstance, that some use as a basis for opposition. To all I say, exercise faith and put reliance on the Savior’s teaching that we should “know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). The Church is making great efforts to be transparent with the records we have, but after all we can publish, our members are sometimes left with basic questions that cannot be resolved by study. That is the Church history version of “opposition in all things.” Some things can be learned only by faith (see D&C 88:118). Our ultimate reliance must be on faith in the witness we have received from the Holy Ghost.
For some (including many here on this site), that witness is not enough. How might you take this quote into an interesting direction in a lesson without shooting yourself in the foot? Could you ask “What advice would you give to people whose witness does not seem to be enough to sustain commitment in the face of the many questions they have about our history?”.
Quote:
Some of this opposition even comes from Church members. Some who use personal reasoning or wisdom to resist prophetic direction give themselves a label borrowed from elected bodies—“the loyal opposition.” However appropriate for a democracy, there is no warrant for this concept in the government of God’s kingdom, where questions are honored but opposition is not (see Matthew 26:24).How about this one? I am thinking of skipping this one, although it does broach on the unorthodox perspective of our church. I don’t want to entrench the idea that you can’t object conscientiously in our church — something DHO may be suggesting. We have people who call themselves “Faithful Dissidents” and others. And I’m not convinced too many questions are honored, particularly if given publicly. Thoughts — would you leave this one alone?
Quote:
God rarely infringes on the agency of any of His children by intervening against some for the relief of others. But He does ease the burdens of our afflictions and strengthen us to bear them, as He did for Alma’s people in the land of Helam (see Mosiah 24:13–15). He does not prevent all disasters, but He does answer our prayers to turn them aside, as He did with the uniquely powerful cyclone that threatened to prevent the dedication of the temple in Fiji;6 or He does blunt their effects, as He did with the terrorist bombing that took so many lives in the Brussels airport but only injured our four missionaries.Another one — comments on what you might say about God’s role in helping us deal with opposition?
First, I think it was Ray (our resident examiner of words) who pointed out the word in. There must needs be opposition inall things. As in inside or part of (the dictionary definition is enclosed or surrounded by). Second, this is not my favorite DHO talk but it does have some decent stuff in it. I’d accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and not mess with Mr. In Between.
Quote:How might you take this quote into an interesting direction in a lesson without shooting yourself in the foot? Could you ask “What advice would you give to people whose witness does not seem to be enough to sustain commitment in the face of the many questions they have about our history?”
I’d probably avoid that quote. I clearly have many questions and struggle with some things despite the essays. There are some things I don’t think we yet know the answers (seeing through a glass darkly, etc.). I might point out that most people who struggle with questions or doubt are very quiet about it and not outwardly defiant/oppositional, and I agree with the last line – our ultimate reliance must be on faith/belief, and we sometimes have to accept that we just don’t know. (That said I’d probably actually start with the first one or two paragraphs of section I.
I’d also skip your second quote. (I at first found it objectionable, but in reality I’m not really loyal opposition. I am not opposed to the gospel or thew church, I simply have a different perspective on some things.)
Quote:Another one — comments on what you might say about God’s role in helping us deal with opposition?
This one’s actually better and I recently gave a talk about it (and the talk in question is a reference for another upcoming talk assignment). Despite those who like to preach the prosperity gospel, there is little evidence in the scriptures that God will not allow us to suffer, and as far as I can tell there is nowhere in the scriptures where it actually says God won’t give us more than we can handle. I agree with Oaks, I don’t think God generally intervenes – including “giving us trials.” (I don’t believe God turned aside the hurricane or protected the missionaries, that’s DHO being human and taking a stab at confirmation bias.) I do believe that God, through the Holy Ghost, can give us comfort and that sometimes the church (or individuals in the church) can give us succor (aid, assistance, support). People and organizations outside the church can do so as well. In a nutshell I don’t think God really helps us deal with opposition, I think God expects us to deal with it ourselves.
I might use the following quotes to spur discussion instead:
Quote:The purpose of mortal life for the children of God is to provide the experiences needed “to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life.” As President Thomas S. Monson taught us so powerfully this morning, we progress by making choices, by which we are tested to show that we will keep God’s commandments (see Abraham 3:25). To be tested, we must have the agency to choose between alternatives. To provide alternatives on which to exercise our agency, we must have opposition.
Quote:Opposition in the form of difficult circumstances we face in mortality is also part of the plan that furthers our growth in mortality. All of us experience various kinds of opposition that test us. Some of these tests are temptations to sin. Some are mortal challenges apart from personal sin. Some are very great. Some are minor. Some are continuous, and some are mere episodes. None of us is exempt. Opposition permits us to grow toward what our Heavenly Father would have us become.
Quote:Through all mortal opposition, we have God’s assurance that He will “consecrate [our] afflictions for [our] gain” (2 Nephi 2:2). We have also been taught to understand our mortal experiences and His commandments in the context of His great plan of salvation, which tells us the purpose of life and gives us the assurance of a Savior, in whose name I testify of the truth of these things. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Thanks DJ. One thing that is therapeutic for me in teaching is altering, if even slightly, some of the unconscious bias we have in our church. And sometimes, the shallow, unsatisfying reasons we rely on. When done carefully, it can actually enrich the lesson and make it interesting to people, speaking to those who are quiet about their doubts. One example is DHO’s suggestion that you have to rely on your testimony when no amount of study can answer the questions. I have a testimony I can rely on if I want, but my commitment and faith is at an all time low. I find it more comfortable to downplay my subjective, often-disaffirmed-by-facts “testimony” and approach the church with a healthy, passive, non-confrontive agnosticism (I would not tell the quorum this) In those times, I think leaders need to try to be empathetic toward those who have questions that bother them. We need to be non-judgmental. We need to meet them at the level of commitment they are currently at. That is respect. We need to stand at the door and knock, and if they don’t understand, to NOT be negative about them. Often, giving people space is the best way to make them come around faster than going for the short-term win.
I have a story when I was a missionary. We found an over age youth who agreed to be baptized, Our bishop, the following Sunday, indicated there was a youth fireside or something that interfered with the baptism at which the baptisee could attend. Could we delay the baptism a week? I was obviously against it, thinking, as a missionary would, the fireside should be rescheduled. Further, we’d seen so many times that delaying baptism bought time for negative forces to talk the investigator out of baptism.
I guess it was written all over my face that I was disturbed at this request, and the Bishop quickly said “This was just a suggestion — I will leave the decision to you”. The space he gave me, allowed me to think it over, and so I agreed, later to reschedule the baptism. I think the respect it communicated had something to do with it. Becase there was often tension between missionaries and the local Ward leaders over the speed of baptisms. In giving me the decision, and not forcing it on me (my right anyway, in consultation with the investigator), he actually softened the situation and made it more inviting for me to agree to his request. We see the same principle when people are dating, and one is not sure about the relationship anymore. The best thing to do is give the person space to make up their mind. This actually tends to trigger more commitment from the unsure girlfriend/boyfriend than being pushy, or breaking it off with them, or giving them a deadline. I think the same applies to the person suffering from a commitment crisis. Often, they need, kind, respectfual space, free of judgmentalism, free of negative comments in meetings about how they should know better, with true charity that percolates through ALL aspects of the church experience.
I am thinking of using one of DHO”s statements where he mentions that opposition can be episodic, short-term, or continuous. That presents a kind of heirarchy of opposition, each with its own general strategies. I am thinking of organizing the lesson around those three types of opposition, on a continuum. The continuous one is the hardest, because there is often no way to overcome the opposition (think of the person with terminal cancer). How do we overcome in those cases? I think we do so by shifting our efforts from beating cancer, to keeping our inner peace in the face of the challenge. How do you do that? Stay at peace when all things are crashing and burning around you, and there is nothing you can do about it?
And of course, episodic and short-term peace are easier to talk about, as one can draw on life experience, the example of JS persisting in finding a printer for the BOM until he finally found one willing to print it. There are many ways of overcoming the short-term and episodic challenges that can leave people in the class feeling uplifted.
I suppose I should make it clear. I actually think DHO’s talk was about faith in the same sense that I use the word. When I speak of faith, it has nothing to do with believing something will happen in this world and very little to do with “things not seen but hoped for.” When I speak of faith it means nothing more than I believe at some future time Jesus Christ will indeed do that which we are taught He will. Everything else is inconsequential. I would include other scriptures like Malachi 3:10
Quote:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
How do we reconcile this scripture with the others that talk about opposition?
What does it mean when a person in your ward has opposition or challenges in life?
How do we interpret it? They aren’t living gospel principles, etc.
Do we have a right to interpret another person’s life?
I suppose that I would try to bring in how different LDS people deal with significant trials. You know that this has been my pet issue after encountering a major trial. Basically these approaches attempt to answer the questions of “why me?” and “why now?” There are two extremes. One is to believe that everything is orchestrated by God. In that sense, God personalizes the trials and life experiences of each individual person. It would be unhelpful to want someone else’s life because your life is tailor fit by God to bring about the greatest amount of growth. You may be tested with debilitating disease and crushing debt while your neighbor may be tested with good health and affluence… God is in charge. The “current bush” talk is a good example of this approach.
The other extreme is that God does not intervene in individual lives (or at least very very rarely). DHO says that “God rarely infringes on the agency of any of His children by intervening against some for the relief of others.” In this extreme our many trails are left to a significant degree to chance. God set up a world of experience, trails, and “opposition in all things” and does not often see the need to tip the scales in our favor.
Which of these two is right? Are both of them compatible with being a good Latter Day Saint?
Enter SWK…
Quote:The daily newspaper screamed the headlines: “Plane Crash Kills 43. No Survivors of Mountain Tragedy,” and thousands of voices joined in a chorus: “Why did the Lord let this terrible thing happen?”
Two automobiles crashed when one went through a red light, and six people were killed. Why would God not prevent this?
Why should the young mother die of cancer and leave her eight children motherless? Why did not the Lord heal her?
A little child was drowned; another was run over. Why?
A man died one day suddenly of a coronary occlusion as he climbed a stairway. His body was found slumped on the floor. His wife cried out in agony, “Why? Why would the Lord do this to me? Could he not have considered my three little children who still need a father?”
A young man died in the mission field and people critically questioned: “Why did not the Lord protect this youth while he was doing proselyting work?”
I wish I could answer these questions with authority, but I cannot. I am sure that sometime we’ll understand and be reconciled. But for the present we must seek understanding as best we can in the gospel principles. Was it the Lord who directed the plane into the mountain to snuff out the lives of its occupants, or were there mechanical faults or human errors?
Did our Father in heaven cause the collision of the cars that took six people into eternity, or was it the error of the driver who ignored safety rules?
Did God take the life of the young mother or prompt the child to toddle into the canal or guide the other child into the path of the oncoming car?
Did the Lord cause the man to suffer a heart attack? Was the death of the missionary untimely?
Answer, if you can. I cannot, for though I know God has a major role in our lives, I do not know how much he causes to happen and how much he merely permits.I believe that we should be careful of claiming with surety what interpretation is correct. If a Prophet of God does not feel empowered to speak authoritively on this subject then perhaps there is room for multiple perspectives. Whichever is more right – the gospel answer is the same. SWK continues…
Quote:We sometimes think we would like to know what lies ahead, but sober thought brings us back to accepting life a day at a time and magnifying and glorifying that day. …
We knew before we were born that we were coming to the earth for bodies and experience and that we would have joys and sorrows, ease and pain, comforts and hardships, health and sickness, successes and disappointments, and we knew also that after a period of life we would die. We accepted all these eventualities with a glad heart, eager to accept both the favorable and unfavorable. We eagerly accepted the chance to come earthward even though it might be for only a day or a year. Perhaps we were not so much concerned whether we should die of disease, of accident, or of senility. We were willing to take life as it came and as we might organize and control it, and this without murmur, complaint, or unreasonable demands.
In the face of apparent tragedy we must put our trust in God, knowing that despite our limited view his purposes will not fail. With all its troubles life offers us the tremendous privilege to grow in knowledge and wisdom, faith and works, preparing to return and share God’s glory.
We know that there is opposition in our current environment. We know that we have agency or the ability to act in response to what we encounter. We know that this creates the potential for us to grow.
Opposition + Agency = Growth
Quote:The purpose of mortal life for the children of God is to provide the experiences needed “to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life.” As President Thomas S. Monson taught us so powerfully this morning, we progress by making choices, by which we are tested to show that we will keep God’s commandments (see Abraham 3:25). To be tested, we must have the agency to choose between alternatives. To provide alternatives on which to exercise our agency, we must have opposition.
Quote:Opposition in the form of difficult circumstances we face in mortality is also part of the plan that furthers our growth in mortality. All of us experience various kinds of opposition that test us. Some of these tests are temptations to sin. Some are mortal challenges apart from personal sin. Some are very great. Some are minor. Some are continuous, and some are mere episodes. None of us is exempt. Opposition permits us to grow toward what our Heavenly Father would have us become.
Quote:Through all mortal opposition, we have God’s assurance that He will “consecrate [our] afflictions for [our] gain” (2 Nephi 2:2). We have also been taught to understand our mortal experiences and His commandments in the context of His great plan of salvation, which tells us the purpose of life and gives us the assurance of a Savior
Thanks DJ for those great quotes!
:thumbup: More from SWK as he quotes some relevant sources…
Quote:I love the verse of “How Firm a Foundation”—
When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not thee o’erflow
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
[See Hymns, no. 5]
And Elder James E. Talmage wrote: “No pang that is suffered by man or woman upon the earth will be without its compensating effect … if it be met with patience.”…
“No pain that we suffer, no trial that we experience is wasted. It ministers to our education, to the development of such qualities as patience, faith, fortitude and humility. All that we suffer and all that we endure, especially when we endure it patiently, builds up our characters, purifies our hearts, expands our souls, and makes us more tender and charitable, more worthy to be called the children of God … and it is through sorrow and suffering, toil and tribulation, that we gain the education that we come here to acquire and which will make us more like our Father and Mother in heaven. …” (Orson F. Whitney)
I like this because it makes room for multiple perspectives that both have support from various church leaders. It is faith affirming and ends on a positive message.
just my $0.02
I think your comments are worth more than $0.02 Roy. Love the quotes from SWK. I think they came from his talk “Death, Tragedy or Destiny?” which I read a long time ago. I will likely use that section of your comments. I was also going to contrast the opposition we face, with the section in D&C 89 (if I remember it correctly, about the results of righeous use of priesthood power”. How your scepter will be an unchanging scepter and your ‘kingdom will flow unto you without compulsory means”.
I take the kingdom flowing as the antithesis of opposition in this life. It sounds effortless, as if the things you want come to you naturally without opposition. I would like to present, as a I have learned that life really does FLOW to you, without opposition, when you are applying the right principles in the right circumstances. And I think opposition is there to teach us when we are doing something wrong. Ever ask a volunteer to do something, they agree, and then bail? I believe there are principles at work that are not being followed when that happens regularly. And I know what those principles are.
Also, I would like to ask the question of you all.
Let’s talk about opposition in the chronic category. Let’s say you lost your job, your spouse left you, you have no children , and you have cancer which is inoperable. What constitutes “overcoming opposition” in this case? What are your goals? How can you say, after this life is over, that you “overcame” opposition in this situation? Assume there is no way out of impending death or any of the things that constitute your situation.
SilentDawning wrote:I take the kingdom flowing as the antithesis of opposition in this life. It sounds effortless, as if the things you want come to you naturally without opposition. I would like to present, as a I have learned that life really does FLOW to you, without opposition, when you are applying the right principles in the right circumstances.
Frankly, I think the scriptures contradict themselves. That is not necessarily a bad thing. “early bird gets the worm” is the opposite of “all good things come to those who wait” and yet both of these axioms are equally true – just not equally true for all people in all situations. This is yet another example of opposition in all things. It is not necessarily good vs. bad or right vs. wrong. Opposition can also be truth vs. truth.
Quote:and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.
It appears that Christ experienced these things that he might learn mercy. I imagine that we have these same sort of experiences for similar reasons… i.e. that we might grow and growth entails much more than just following the commandments all the time (Jesus was already perfect at that), part of growth is in learning empathy and mercy.
SilentDawning wrote:What constitutes “overcoming opposition” in this case? What are your goals? How can you say, after this life is over, that you “overcame” opposition in this situation?
I personally do not like the term overcome as applied to this situation. To me it seems to imply that one “rose above” or was not affected or mired by the situation. I worry that this casts judgments on people who are depressed by their situation… as if they are somehow failing to overcome. I like better the term “endure” or “remain.” The experience must be “lived through”. There is no way above it or under it or around it. It must be lived. I “endure (remain – while learning in hope, faith, charity, mercy, and love) until the end.”
Roy wrote:SilentDawning wrote:Frankly, I think the scriptures contradict themselves. That is not necessarily a bad thing. “early bird gets the worm” is the opposite of “all good things come to those who wait” and yet both of these axioms are equally true – just not equally true for all people in all situations. This is yet another example of opposition in all things. It is not necessarily good vs. bad or right vs. wrong. Opposition can also be truth vs. truth.
Just as research contradicts itself. At first, when I was coming up with a dissertation topic, I would get ticked that the research didn’t line up so I could make some bedrock conclusions. But then I realized that its the tension that spawns interesting research questions.
I see these two scriptures as providing healthy opposition, and reconciling them makes interesting conversation and lessons, especially when you, as a teacher, come with a well thought out answer.
SilentDawning wrote:What constitutes “overcoming opposition” in this case? What are your goals? How can you say, after this life is over, that you “overcame” opposition in this situation?
[quote=”Roy”I personally do not like the term overcome as applied to this situation. To me it seems to imply that one “rose above” or was not affected or mired by the situation. I worry that this casts judgments on people who are depressed by their situation… as if they are somehow failing to overcome. I like better the term “endure” or “remain.” The experience must be “lived through”. There is no way above it or under it or around it. It must be lived. I “endure (remain – while learning in hope, faith, charity, mercy, and love) until the end.”[/quote]
Perhaps the question should be…how might you respond to this kind of opposition?
I can say I would say the goal shifts from overcoming to maintaining inner peace in spite of the situation. Engrossing yourself in things you enjoy with the time left. Looking forward to a new experience after death. Living in the moment. Prayer to calm the spirit. Quote Victor Frankl who said he had to find meaning in his suffering when he was in the Nazi concentration camp. How can you find meaning in personal suffering?
Perhaps in the legacy you leave behind?
SilentDawning wrote:I can say I would say the goal shifts from overcoming to maintaining inner peace in spite of the situation. Engrossing yourself in things you enjoy with the time left. Looking forward to a new experience after death. Living in the moment. Prayer to calm the spirit. Quote Victor Frankl who said he had to find meaning in his suffering when he was in the Nazi concentration camp. How can you find meaning in personal suffering?Perhaps in the legacy you leave behind?
Yes, those are good thoughts.
Wasn’t too happy with this experience of teaching the lesson in the Subject line above today. First, the announcements took so long, I was left with 15 minutes to teach the lesson. The HPGL had a ton of things to talk about, and then, had everyone cite the missionary mantra from The Doctrine and Covenents. I thought that was unmecessary when I’d prepared ALL WEEK to teach the quorum that day. I walked up to the front feeling a bit ticked inside. Also, this was my first bit of activity in the church in three years. I would have liked to have been able to teach the lesson I had prepared to the fullest.
I was able to engage the class as I used to, but there wasn’t much spirit there. I think it was because I was feeling disturbed that I had put so much time into the lesson only to find there was no time to do much. Nor did I approach the lesson from the armchair of spirituality. I wanted to talk about things that were practical, rather than touching. When I want a spiritual lesson, I focus on the spiritual.
Nonetheless, I did take some risks that worked out.
I did talk about Church history being a source of opposition — the latter because DHO openly stated it. I DID talk about church transparency because it was in the same quote from DHO. And so, I I DID talk about the essays. Only one person knew about them! And people didn’t seem to really care about them.
I DID talk about the Bloggernacle. I did talk about Church history being a source of opposition — the latter because DHO alluded to it. People were not aware of the essays except for a seasoned ex-Bishop. One person knew what the Bloggernacle was. I did not appear to cross any lines.
I asked a key question after quoting DHO who said that when your testimony is challenged by church history, focus on the fruits of the church, and your testimony. Then I asked:
“What do you do when people with testimonies find that reflecting on Church fruits and their spiritual witness is not enough to sustain commitment??”
No real satisfactory answers other than “continue to love them”. I then asked if anyone knew what the Bloggernacle was, and one person had heard of it. Without naming specific sites, I shared the themes in people’s introductory threads, and synthesized why people have commitment issues — ranging from history, burnout, lack of community, women in the church, same sex attraction, specific experiences they’ve had, lack of answers to prayers”. Asked how we help people in that situation. Love was a good answer. I then shared the details I’ve heard hear, and encouraged everyone to:
Respect Boundaries
Not to lose interest in people because they are not willing or able to serve
Build community
Avoid being judgmental — it’s often not about sin.
Don’t be offended when they finally come out with something they don’t believe that flies in the face of traditional LDS doctrine.
I cut the lesson short because we ran out of time. I am glad I did it.
It was a marginal success given how much everyone talked. I think each person in the room either talked, or showed strong body language support for what I said at key points in the lesson.
Hopefully they won’t ask me again for a couple months.
It sounds like a strong success. Maybe your mood about the time influenced how you perceived it, but it sounds like a wonderful lesson. great job SD! Sounds to me like you hit it out of the park. You delivered nuanced thoughts and yet because of time, it couldn’t get mired. It may only feel like a pebble, but they do add up. I hope you look back and find it a success. It sounds like it was to me. I ran over by about 5 or 10 minutes, (I found out later), partly because I opted for a straight-arrow opening (quoting the ‘must needs be opposition in all things’ scripture from the BoM) and letting people make comments — just so there was a blend of nuancing and traditional ideas in the lesson. I didn’t want to make it all on the borderline between orthodox and non-traditional commentary. Especially in my debut. The class immediately settled into orthodox boredom until I got to the nuanced stuff, the stuff where I pull in secular knowledge, or things they don’t know, to address questions in the lesson…for me, it’s the stuff they’ve never heard before that makes it interesting for them. One thing that got an interested response from over half of them was when I asked how we overcome temptation. I was surprised at how there were very weak answers from the crowd. I quoted a book about how to increase self-discipline in which the author prescribed a method of doing this. In my view, the method was actually something Satan uses to tempt us. Except, the author took Satan’s principle and used it for good. At first, before they knew what I actually meant, I got sudden “mayday” stares from the orthodox members of the crowd, particularly those who had been in signfiicant leadership positions in their lifetime.
Essentially, when you have a task that challenges your self-discipline, then you convince yourself you will only do a little part of it. Just as Satan convinces us to take “a little bite of dessert” (after which we eat the whole thing), or lets us take “one drink” (leading to full-on drunkenness), we tell ourselves we will take a small step toward a good habit. For example, if we want to go running, but keep talking ourselves out of it, we say “I’m just going to put on my jogging shoes and then go around the block rather than my full 3 miles”. After you get your shoes on, and start running, you are there. Much of the time, you will do a lot more than run around the block. You feel good you are “doing what you are supposed to be doing” and run the full three miles.
What I find funny is that the church will tell us to “stick with approved materials”, but those are generally rather boring repetitive. Unless you can pull in some material that classes have never heard before, that augments what they already know, the lesson can become one of toleration for some of them. But then, you are sometimes skating on thin ice. We are told not to pull in materials that are not approved, yet the scriptures tell us to learn from the “best books”. Inconsistent…and I think it impedes progress toward a Sunday experience that is full of interesting lessons that keep people coming back.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.