Teaching with authenticity

[Anonymous]

My calling for the past couple of months has been teaching Relief Society. I teach from the ETB manual, and sometimes, I really struggle with it. I have been able to carefully choose the quotes that I feel comfortable testifying of, and I bring in a lot of outside quotes, especially from women, and I try to encourage a lot of discussion. My next lesson is on “Following the Prophets,” and I’m having a ton of anxiety about it. For one thing, the lesson is filled with the idea that prophets will never be wrong, and I just don’t believe that. I even find some of the quotes to have an air of arrogance about them, and I feel like the lesson encourages the idea of prophet infallibility.

Any suggestions on teaching with authenticity without saying something completely contrary to what’s in the manual?

[Anonymous]

I have no advice. I just wanted to high five you for taking it on. ETB can be intense trying to navigate. Your willingness and effort are admirable.

We have some seasoned teachers in here, one of them will have a good answer.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like you do what most of us do already – picking quotes you feel comfortable with, using stuff not in the manual, discussion, etc.

This particular lesson is pretty difficult and I’ve been expecting a thread to start about it. There are others here who will be teaching and participating in this lesson as well. I’m with you, I don’t believe most of what ETB said in the Fourteen Fundamentals (14Fs), either.

I look forward to what others have to say, but as I have looked at the lesson I might start with a discussion of some things (like FHE since that one’s in the manual) that prophets have taught us which are generally good. I might also try a discussion about prophets in general, focusing on the idea that there is one and I could use ideas from Elder Nelson’s talk in October conference (and the ideas of unanimity among the Q15), or perhaps Pres. Eyring’s talk. I might try to a discussion about keys, again keeping it very general – I don’t totally buy the whole keys thing, but I like the concept. I might talk about Pres. Monson and what I like about him (his focus on love, the Savior, temples) or what other recent prophets have focused on. The greatest advantage a PH or RS teacher has is that the vast majority of the class has not read the manual.

[Anonymous]

You might pick one thing about a few Presidents of the Church that you love and open a discussion for others to share what they love about any particular President.

For me, that would include Joseph Smith’s willingness to question everything and accept anything he saw as good from other religions – Heber J. Grant’s enduring through depression and even mental breakdowns – David O. McKay’s support for the research that eventually led to the end of the Priesthood ban and his patience in letting that research happen – Spencer W. Kimball’s obvious love of people – Thomas S. Monson’s single-minded focus on love and service. I probably would skip Pres. Benson entirely – not because there weren’t good things about him (there were) but because I would be intentional in trying to move away from his words in that particular lesson.

I would start with something simple like:

Quote:

We all know that even prophets are human and make mistakes, as President Uchtdorf said in a recent General Conference talk, but I want to highlight today a few things I really love about a few of the men who accepted their call to be the Presidents of the Church.

I would share one or two and then invite discussion – and share another one or two if things slow down at any point.

[Anonymous]

NonTraditionalMom wrote:

I teach from the ETB manual, and sometimes, I really struggle with it.

My assumption is that if I think about it sometimes, or it is a recurring thought…there are most likely others in the class or the ward who feel the same way…perhaps a minority, but still…I can’t be the ONLY one thinking these things.

So…stuff that I struggle with…may be stuff to be touched on carefully and responsibly, but not ignored. I often find when I teach HPG with that approach…there are many people who thank me afterwards for bravely stating or asking the questions they had in their minds, but didn’t feel safe to say.

One qualifier on this…it largely depends on the type of ward you have and how open they are to different thinking, and how much social capital you’ve built up so people trust what you are saying and don’t block you out for heresy.

To quote CS Lewis again:

Quote:

If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; … the truth we need most is hidden precisely in the doctrines you least like and least understand.

For me, I least like that prophets instituted polygamy. Studying that has helped me, even though I’ve found no good explanations or answers for it. Simply, studying it has helped me go through a process that is helpful.

[Anonymous]

Braindump here…

1. Talk about how prophetic statements today are often revised in the future as circumstances change. Stop short of discussing the priesthood disavowal essay. Find examples, such as how tithing changed from giving in kind donations to 10% of increase.

2. Talk about how prophets are human and make mistakes. Share stories about how they weren’t perfect at times, and bring it to a soft landing — how we still value their advice.

3. Ask questions “How do you know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet, or as an ordinary man?”. This will help people learn to distinguish between prophecy and opinion — and will tacitly teach them they can exist in the same prophet.

4. Ask “what is the relationship between prophetic revelation and personal revelation?”. This could lead you to discuss the need for personal revelation.

5. Discuss how we should treat people who don’t appear to be following the prophet. Throw in my favorite topic — judgmentalism, and how to avoid it. Address all the black and white thinking in the context of people who do not follow prophets.

6. Explain the article faith which indicates we worship according to the dictates of our own conscience — relate this to Dallin H Oakes comment that all the GA’s can teach are general principles — that i we have an exception, we need to work it out with the Lord. This implies that we should be cautious of blanket application of a prophet’s advice to all people. An internet search might unearth this one — it’s one of my favorites as it elevates personal conscience to the near same level as prophetic utterances.

7. Focus on Bruce R. McConkie’s statement that we are all prophets. The president of the church to the church as a whole, the Bishop to his Ward, and each of us are prophets to our personal affairs — a prophet is anyone who receives revelation for a stewardship.

8. Talk about how to resolve conflicts between personal revelation and advice of a prophet. That could be a discussion item on here at StayLDS all by itself.

Just ideas. Been up all night working and am not thinking entirely straight

[Anonymous]

We are going over lesson 14 (the one that goes over the “14 fundamentals of following the prophet”) in 2 weeks. I have already started to prepare and think how I am going to comment on this lesson.

I certainly don’t want to tell others they are wrong, but I want to try and give some room for those that can’t swallow some of what is in those 14 points.

I have already mentioned to my ward that I had a Faith Crisis and I told about it while I was still in the Bishopric. So I am going to use that a bit stating how pointing to this talk as doctrine can actually drive people out of the church.

I am going to point out that ETB was actually called on the carpet by the first presidency for this talk. He had to come and explain himself to the Q12 and 1st Pres. Of course the brethren never come out and say this, but President Kimball’s son (Edward Kimball – an active BYU professor until he retired) said in the biography of his father that his father was quite upset with ETB for this talk. Something along the lines of the immense pressure that was put on him as the prophet. I am going to say that I am actually shocked to see this in a church manual. We have been told that doctrine will be preached not just by one of the apostles, but you need to hear it preached over and over. I don’t hear “once the prophet has spoken, the thinking is done” nor “the prophet trumps every expert in every field – period” over and over.

I will also bring in that we have been clearly told that the prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such. And I would argue that the only way WE have to know the difference is from the Holy Ghost testifying to us individually.

A few quotes I have on this topic:

Quote:

Marlin Jensen, Church Historian, talked about how when he read the book on Mountain Meadows Massacre that was commissioned by the church and written by 3 BYU professors – “the main lesson that he learned is that all latter day saints should know is that there is nothing virtuous to blind obedience.”

Quote:

Joseph Smith said, “It sounds too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-Day Saint. Methodists have a creed which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled” (History of the Church 5:340).

There was also a quote from Bruce R. McConkie stating that he actually said that some false doctrine might be allowed to be taught in the church to see if the church members would figure it out. I read it in the last few weeks and I thought I copied it down, but I can’t seem to find it. I may have to go and look in my browser history for a while and see if I can find that.

My summary is that I think to just say “follow the prophet” and do everything he says is abdicating our moral and spiritual obligation to follow the Lord. It isn’t that easy. We have to work to get the answers for ourselves.

I might also nudge the question of when is the prophet “revealing” vs. just administering to the affairs of the church? Was changing the age for missionaries a revelation? I don’t think so and I didn’t hear anything from him that he seemed to say it was. Now the prophet had better be able to say that we have asked the Lord and he approves, but I personally don’t call that revelation. That sounds like confirmation from the spirit on an administrative item, not a change in doctrine.

I want to say that I fear we as a church are starting to worship the leaders a bit too much. Placing them on a pedestal and assuming what comes out of their mouths is God’s exact words. I have heard that if we have family home evening (and in another case very regular temple attendance) that even if a child strays from the church that they will return. That to me sounds like God is promising to take away someone’s freeagency. That isn’t right. Also many of the high level leaders did those things and their kids still never came back into the gospel. When people hear these promises and then they don’t come true, they are either going to have to discount the leader giving it, or just throw the towel in on the church as a whole.

I have some more thoughts I want to get organized, especially on how to present them. But on this one I am willing to raise a few feathers as I see this one talk as crossing the line and doing damage.

I won’t be going into how my digging into ETB makes me feel that until he was the prophet, he did whatever he wanted and lacked humility big time. He was called into the 1st presidency’s office more than once and sometimes even after being told not to do something, he effectively did it anyway.

[Anonymous]

I think there are basically three approaches to a lesson that troubles you: 1. Don’t teach it. 2. Confess to the class that you have some troubles with the doctrine being taught (though don’t go to into details, and this is dependent on your ward and comfort level). 3. Take a couple points from the lesson and teach using outside resources.

I think these are equally good approaches.

A good resource is the book Crucible of Doubt. It has a great chapter on prophetic fallibility that you can quote from directly.

Thanks for teaching this. If you are able to help one person through this it will all be worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Thank you, all, for the insights. It is Lesson #11, the 14 Fundamentals lesson, and I feel like this is one of those topics that is really difficult to say that you don’t believe some of the doctrines without causing… I don’t know… without causing something that I’m not ready to cause. Either you follow the prophet, or you’re an apostate/heretic, right? I mean, Pres. Hinckley told us not to have more than one earring, so if you are dating a girl who doesn’t take her second pair out, she is really showing you how shallow her testimony is, right Elder Bednar?? This talk was recently brought up in RS, and several women shared their personal experiences of taking out their multiple piercings immediately, and the general consensus was exactly what the manual is saying: the prophet says it, you do it, the end. And if he’s wrong, you’ll be blessed anyway, so no worries.

I vacillate between just teaching the lesson and swallowing my anxiety, trying to walk that careful line between supporting the lesson and inviting dissension, and just asking to be released. I feel like the RS sisters need a teacher who can speak from a place of surety and confidence. Frankly, I’m anxious about bringing up any contradictory ideas because I don’t feel secure in those any more than I do in teaching the concepts in the lesson. Sigh.

And then, of course, I realize that this is a 40 minute lesson during which at least half of the people will leave with a crying child or diaper change, and likely no one will remember an hour later.

[Anonymous]

We have some long threads in our archives about every one of those things in that list. Do a search and see if there are things you can use – ignoring the comments, for this purpose, that are just complaints.

[Anonymous]

NonTraditionalMom wrote:

Either you follow the prophet, or you’re an apostate/heretic, right? I mean, Pres. Hinckley told us not to have more than one earring, so if you are dating a girl who doesn’t take her second pair out, she is really showing you how shallow her testimony is, right Elder Bednar?? This talk was recently brought up in RS, and several women shared their personal experiences of taking out their multiple piercings immediately, and the general consensus was exactly what the manual is saying: the prophet says it, you do it, the end. And if he’s wrong, you’ll be blessed anyway, so no worries.

I personally would either teach the lesson as it is worded in the manual or ask for a sub.

I do not have too much problem teaching a lesson that I disagree with because it is not my place to teach the docrine according to Roy. I was called to teach the doctrine according to the COJCLDS. I believe that there are times when a thought provoking question could be asked, I just don’t know if this lesson is the time to do it.

Or I would fake an injury and call for a sub. 😮

[Anonymous]

But what if you don’t consider it doctrine, Roy? It could be argued, of course, that we don’t get to pick what is and isn’t doctrine and that’s the prophet’s job (which would fit in the lesson in question). On the other hand, it could be argued we are expected to understand whether something is or isn’t doctrine and gain a testimony of the doctrine. Throwing the dark mirror into the mix, as individuals we each have different levels of testimonies about different things. While I do believe TSM is a prophet (but not in the orthodox way), I don’t believe much of what is in the 14Fs.

I get your point, if we agree to teach or accept the assignment we’re expected to teach the lesson at hand – but what if we really can’t teach that because we don’t believe it? FWIW, when my FC hit, I was GD teacher and asked to be released because I felt I couldn’t teach what I didn’t believe – and I still can’t.

[Anonymous]

The 14Fs are so so bad. I don’t envy you. I think you have a few options:

1 – find the diamond in this pile of horse manure and focus solely on that.

2 – throw questions out to the group without taking a stand; let the class teach the lesson. For one, I’d ask: 1) what do you do if a current leader asks you to do something against what a previous leader said? 2) what if they ask you to do something that violates your conscience?, 3) how do you distinguish between when they are speaking an opinion and when they are speaking for God?, 4) how do you demonstrate respect for the office without giving up your own need for personal revelation? 5) any idea why people think Mormons look like a cult?

3 – tell the RS president you can’t in good conscience teach that lesson and why and then ask them to find someone else to cover.

4 – show a video of something that is loosely related

5 – fake an illness (I’d do #3 before I did that)

6 – juxtapose quotes from evil dictators that sound a whole lot like the 14F and then ask who said it (that’s sort of a bad idea maybe, but it amuses me). It’s hard not to see the similarities between the standard for following leaders laid out in the 14F and things Kim John Il has said.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

But what if you don’t consider it doctrine, Roy? It could be argued, of course, that we don’t get to pick what is and isn’t doctrine and that’s the prophet’s job (which would fit in the lesson in question). On the other hand, it could be argued we are expected to understand whether something is or isn’t doctrine and gain a testimony of the doctrine.

Yes. And here is part of my problem with this lesson: I don’t believe that it is doctrine. I don’t believe that Wilford Woodruff was directed by God to say that no prophet could lead the church astray, and I don’t believe that Ezra Taft Benson was directed by God to give his tips on following the prophet. My testimony of deity, in fact, relies on prophets being completely fallible. I need to believe that prophets have misunderstood the Spirit’s promptings or decided to do things their own way because otherwise, it really is true that God doesn’t love me the way he loves my husband and sons. I’ve believed that in the past, but I just can’t do it any more. I’m not trying to turn this into a feminist rant or anything, but this is a very critical issue for me. So then I have a really hard time stomaching, let alone saying out loud to people I am teaching, that prophets always speak for the Lord.

But I agree, Ray, that I agreed to teach the Church’s doctrine, not my own. And truly, I think my mental/emotional/spiritual state is making this into a much bigger deal than it needs to be.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

6 – juxtapose quotes from evil dictators that sound a whole lot like the 14F and then ask who said it (that’s sort of a bad idea maybe, but it amuses me). It’s hard not to see the similarities between the standard for following leaders laid out in the 14F and things Kim John Il has said.

Oooh! I saw something on facebook or somewhere where you had to guess whether Dumbledore or Uchtdorf said it. Maybe I’ll put a whole bunch of old white guys on the board and have them do a matching game. 😆

[Anonymous]

NonTraditionalMom wrote:

Either you follow the prophet, or you’re an apostate/heretic, right?

No. That’s not right. That’s too extreme of a position. Brigham Young advocated we use our brains, and good reason, and don’t simply follow like lemmings. That is not the plan. So…although some quotes or positions are taken to break it down to such an simplistic formulas and package that as a faithful righteous position…it simply can’t be so simplistic. Or the priesthood ban wouldn’t have been lifted and we’d be living polygamy, because one prophet once told us to.

You will hear lots of people’s stories (ear rings, mission calls, sacrifices people have made to be obedient, miraculous cars that don’t work at just the moment that if it was working would have smashed into a drunk driver coming the other way….). People like stories. They go to church to be inspired. Some stretch for inspiration through Paul H Dunn stories.

That doesn’t make them right. And it doesn’t make our job to correct them.

One thing I learned as a scoutmaster…the lesson manuals and programs are often outlined for you on what you should teach. Agree with them or not…the material is there for you to teach it. Have people read quotes, ask questions, follow the lesson outline and let others make the statements. I have learned I can be a neutral facilitator. I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, I can just follow an imperfect scout program like I’m asked to do, and try to put my personality in it so I am honestly embracing the good things of scouts while inwardly telling myself scouts is stupid except for the part it gets boys to do stuff. Some people say every boy MUST get his eagle…and that just isn’t true, and those words will never come out of my mouth. What will come out is a plan to do scouts so boys have fun. And if they don’t like what comes out of my mouth, they can release me and I won’t lose sleep over it. I follow my heart, focus on the purpose of things, don’t try to complicate it, and try to do good things to add to the ward family.

…and I skip the things I hate. Like black and white extreme statements (which many 14F sound like, especially when taken out of context or over quoted with hyperbole).

Do you have a lesson outline, or is it a general conference talk on 14 fundamentals that you have to prepare what to ask people?

Have you read our thread discussions on the 14F?

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2172&p=25747&hilit=14+fundamentals#p25747” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2172&p=25747&hilit=14+fundamentals#p25747

[Author]

Posts