This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to D&C 129-132. We discuss teachings of Joseph Smith, polygamy, and eternal marriage. Study with me!
Anchor.fm:
Soundcloud:
Youtube:
Showing posts with label #teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #teaching. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2021
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Jesus Opposes Equality
Equality
For many, this is the most important ideal to which a society can ascend. Even before the Constitution was written, the Declaration of Independence boldly asserted that the fact that all men are created equal is self-evident.
Since then, many people have fought, and even died, so that all people, regardless of race, gender, station, or faith, would enjoy equal protection under the law in the United States.
Of course, the idea of equality is not new. Even in Biblical times, it was accepted that God was "no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34) When it came to the atonement money collected by Moses, the standard was half a shekel whether rich or poor. (Exodus 30:15)
These facts make it easy for some to believe that equality is always a good thing. It is not.
The book of proverbs spends a great deal of time highlighting the inequality of the wise and the foolish. Consider this passage that explains the inequality between the slothful and the industrious: "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich." (Proverbs 10:4)
The inequality between God's treatment of Israel and Egypt is a critical theme in the Exodus. Ten devastating plagues came upon the Egyptians, but they were not had in the land of Goshen where the Hebrews dwelt. The city of Jericho was leveled to support the invading forces of Israel.
Even among the house of Israel, not all were equal. The priests had the authority to bear the Ark of the Covenant, and when Uzza put forth his hand to steady it, God killed him. (1 Chronicles 13:7-10) Korah pointed to equality as a justification for protesting the rule of Moses over Israel in the wilderness, but God opened the earth up and swallowed him and his followers. (Numbers 16)
Of course, some people who, like Korah, are overzealous in their love of equality, would suggest that the Old Testament does not count, and that Christians should get a better understanding of how to live from Christ himself.
What these individuals fail to understand is that Jesus seems to oppose equality.
Consider the explanation Jesus gave for why he taught in parables:
"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (Matthew 13:11-12)
In his parables, he emphasized inequality. Consider the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13). In his parable of the sower, Jesus compared different kinds of people to different kinds of ground... and even the good ground produced various amounts of fruit. (Matthew 13:3-9)
While he had power to do miracles wherever he went, access to his power was restricted by faith. (Matthew 13:57-58) To a Canaanite woman who plead for his help, Jesus declared "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26)
Even the most zealous proponents of equality in all things will note the differences in how he evaluated the rich and the poor. Consider the statement "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus echoes the same sentiment. (Luke 16:20-31)
For someone who is lauded by some as the champion of equality, Jesus certainly seemed to oppose it.
How can a person reconcile the inherent goodness that can be perceived by correcting the injustices in society, with the source of all goodness seeming to perpetuate inequality?
A large part of the issue comes from the ambiguity in the term equality.
There is a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. A favorite example that has been used by multiple sources, including Ben Shapiro, is seen in the salaries of professional athletes. I do not have the abilities of a Lebron James, so even if I put in the same amount of practice, I should not expect the same outcome in terms of income for my basketball performance.
A similar distinction can be seen in conversations about gender equality. There is absolutely a sense in which men and women are equal. The Family: A Proclamation to the World clearly states
The sense in which men and women are equal partners obviously does not mean they have the same primary roles... since primary roles were described just above the affirmation of equality. In this sense, equality has more to do with accountability for the well being of their children. No mother should withhold from her children because "it's their father's job to do that," anymore than a father should neglect his obligations because "their mom isn't doing enough." Both parents must ensure that their children are raised in love and righteousness, and that their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are met. This sort of equality may mean that a wife needs to help her husband emotionally so that he can be productive, or that a man might need to reinforce his wife's guidance in the home.
This sort of equality does not try and deny gender roles. It is perfectly appropriate if female models make more money than male models, or if male athletes make more money than female athletes... because in a large number of important qualities, men and women are different, and it is prudent for men and women to play to their strengths.
Another sort of equality that seems to confuse some people is equality of access to God. While it is true that Jesus loves every person, and that each of us is a beloved son or daughter of God, he speaks to us in different ways, and gives us different strengths and weaknesses.
Even in the New Testament, Paul compared the different types of individuals to various parts of the body:
This is not to say that true injustice should be accepted. Cases of criminal behavior... theft, fraud, murder, etc, should be criminal for all individuals. People with greater affluence should be held to the same standards of conduct as those who have none. It is wrong to falsely accuse a poor man who is unable to defend himself or to falsely accuse a wealthy man who many be more likely to settle financially. This is the sort of equality that is self-evident... and that is the kind of equality that persuaded great men to declare independence from European monarchs in past centuries.
This is not the same as the equality touted by some contemporary zealots. The quest to make people "equal" in the French Revolution robbed many of life and liberty. The same can be said for socialist movements in Russia, China, and Venezuela. Societies should extend equal protection under the law, because this equality is compatible with freedom, but societies cannot force equal outcomes for individuals without robbing people of their freedom.
Ultimately, Jesus did not even preach equality. He preached humility. A humble man is less concerned with the success or position of others... a humble man is grateful for what he has, and does his best to do what is right and help those around him. A humble man lays up treasure in heaven, regardless of how many around him revel in treasures on earth:
"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:11-12)
For many, this is the most important ideal to which a society can ascend. Even before the Constitution was written, the Declaration of Independence boldly asserted that the fact that all men are created equal is self-evident.
Since then, many people have fought, and even died, so that all people, regardless of race, gender, station, or faith, would enjoy equal protection under the law in the United States.
Of course, the idea of equality is not new. Even in Biblical times, it was accepted that God was "no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34) When it came to the atonement money collected by Moses, the standard was half a shekel whether rich or poor. (Exodus 30:15)
These facts make it easy for some to believe that equality is always a good thing. It is not.
The book of proverbs spends a great deal of time highlighting the inequality of the wise and the foolish. Consider this passage that explains the inequality between the slothful and the industrious: "He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand: but the hand of the diligent maketh rich." (Proverbs 10:4)
The inequality between God's treatment of Israel and Egypt is a critical theme in the Exodus. Ten devastating plagues came upon the Egyptians, but they were not had in the land of Goshen where the Hebrews dwelt. The city of Jericho was leveled to support the invading forces of Israel.
Even among the house of Israel, not all were equal. The priests had the authority to bear the Ark of the Covenant, and when Uzza put forth his hand to steady it, God killed him. (1 Chronicles 13:7-10) Korah pointed to equality as a justification for protesting the rule of Moses over Israel in the wilderness, but God opened the earth up and swallowed him and his followers. (Numbers 16)
Of course, some people who, like Korah, are overzealous in their love of equality, would suggest that the Old Testament does not count, and that Christians should get a better understanding of how to live from Christ himself.
What these individuals fail to understand is that Jesus seems to oppose equality.
Consider the explanation Jesus gave for why he taught in parables:
"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." (Matthew 13:11-12)
In his parables, he emphasized inequality. Consider the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13). In his parable of the sower, Jesus compared different kinds of people to different kinds of ground... and even the good ground produced various amounts of fruit. (Matthew 13:3-9)
While he had power to do miracles wherever he went, access to his power was restricted by faith. (Matthew 13:57-58) To a Canaanite woman who plead for his help, Jesus declared "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26)
Even the most zealous proponents of equality in all things will note the differences in how he evaluated the rich and the poor. Consider the statement "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24) The parable of the rich man and Lazarus echoes the same sentiment. (Luke 16:20-31)
For someone who is lauded by some as the champion of equality, Jesus certainly seemed to oppose it.
How can a person reconcile the inherent goodness that can be perceived by correcting the injustices in society, with the source of all goodness seeming to perpetuate inequality?
A large part of the issue comes from the ambiguity in the term equality.
There is a huge difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. A favorite example that has been used by multiple sources, including Ben Shapiro, is seen in the salaries of professional athletes. I do not have the abilities of a Lebron James, so even if I put in the same amount of practice, I should not expect the same outcome in terms of income for my basketball performance.
A similar distinction can be seen in conversations about gender equality. There is absolutely a sense in which men and women are equal. The Family: A Proclamation to the World clearly states
"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, emphasis added)
The sense in which men and women are equal partners obviously does not mean they have the same primary roles... since primary roles were described just above the affirmation of equality. In this sense, equality has more to do with accountability for the well being of their children. No mother should withhold from her children because "it's their father's job to do that," anymore than a father should neglect his obligations because "their mom isn't doing enough." Both parents must ensure that their children are raised in love and righteousness, and that their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs are met. This sort of equality may mean that a wife needs to help her husband emotionally so that he can be productive, or that a man might need to reinforce his wife's guidance in the home.
This sort of equality does not try and deny gender roles. It is perfectly appropriate if female models make more money than male models, or if male athletes make more money than female athletes... because in a large number of important qualities, men and women are different, and it is prudent for men and women to play to their strengths.
Another sort of equality that seems to confuse some people is equality of access to God. While it is true that Jesus loves every person, and that each of us is a beloved son or daughter of God, he speaks to us in different ways, and gives us different strengths and weaknesses.
Even in the New Testament, Paul compared the different types of individuals to various parts of the body:
"For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:14-31)Rather than conflating legitimate inequality with injustice, people have an obligation to do the best they can with what they have been given. The man given five talents should work hard to gain five more. The man given two talents should work hard to gain two talents more. The man given one talent should not bury it or envy those that have more... he should work to do the best he can with what he has received.
This is not to say that true injustice should be accepted. Cases of criminal behavior... theft, fraud, murder, etc, should be criminal for all individuals. People with greater affluence should be held to the same standards of conduct as those who have none. It is wrong to falsely accuse a poor man who is unable to defend himself or to falsely accuse a wealthy man who many be more likely to settle financially. This is the sort of equality that is self-evident... and that is the kind of equality that persuaded great men to declare independence from European monarchs in past centuries.
This is not the same as the equality touted by some contemporary zealots. The quest to make people "equal" in the French Revolution robbed many of life and liberty. The same can be said for socialist movements in Russia, China, and Venezuela. Societies should extend equal protection under the law, because this equality is compatible with freedom, but societies cannot force equal outcomes for individuals without robbing people of their freedom.
Ultimately, Jesus did not even preach equality. He preached humility. A humble man is less concerned with the success or position of others... a humble man is grateful for what he has, and does his best to do what is right and help those around him. A humble man lays up treasure in heaven, regardless of how many around him revel in treasures on earth:
"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:11-12)
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 13 - When Jesus deliberately pushed people away
This week, on the Ward Preacher Podcast:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-13-when-jesus-deliberately-pushed-people-away
Youtube:
- Why Jesus dismissed a pleading woman as a dog
- Why Jesus can judge us
- Jesus deliberately pushes people away by preaching they should eat his flesh and drink his blood
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-13-when-jesus-deliberately-pushed-people-away
Youtube:
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Ward Preach Podcast Ep 12 - Jesus Teaches Reverse Socialism
This week the Come Follow Me curriculum covers Matt 13, Luke 8, 13.
We emphasize Matthew 13, delving into the parable of the sower, the wheat and the tares, the pearl of great price, and others. We also talk about how parable instruction is like reverse socialism. "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear!"
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preach-podcast-ep-12-jesus-teaches-reverse-socialism
Youtube:
We emphasize Matthew 13, delving into the parable of the sower, the wheat and the tares, the pearl of great price, and others. We also talk about how parable instruction is like reverse socialism. "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear!"
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preach-podcast-ep-12-jesus-teaches-reverse-socialism
Youtube:
Sunday, February 24, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Episode 9 - Jesus teaches us to judge others
This week the Come Follow Me curriculum focuses on Matthew 6-7, the conclusion on the Sermon on the Mount. We focus on the importance of doing good for the right reasons, how to make prayer meaningful, and examining Jesus's teaching on judgment in context with his counsel about people who are like dogs, swine, and ravening wolves.
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-episode-9-jesus-teaches-us-to-judge-others
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-episode-9-jesus-teaches-us-to-judge-others
Youtube:
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Ward Preacher Podcast Episode 7 - The various approaches of Jesus
In this episode, we discuss John 2-4 with the Come Follow Me curriculum. Jesus uses a whip, obfuscation, and a direct approach in teaching others.
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-episode-7-the-various-approaches-of-jesus
Youtube:
Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-episode-7-the-various-approaches-of-jesus
Youtube:
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
How NOT to teach from conference talks
For the past several years, teaching in Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society in Sunday meetings have focused on the teachings of former presidents of the church.
This coming year, these meetings will focus on the teachings of living prophets and apostles. This announcement is both exciting and terrifying.
Exciting because members of the church frequently take for granted that we enjoy the counsel of prophets and apostles who are guided by Jesus Christ. There have been times when only a small family such as that of Noah or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob enjoyed this type of guidance. In the days of Moses, or during the reign of the Kings of Judah and Israel, a small nation had access to prophetic guidance. The current availability of prophets to people around the globe is unprecedented, and frequently overlooked. Emphasis on these inspired messages in Sunday meetings provides an opportunity for those who attend to receive the servants of God.
Terrifying because many people have sat through "Teachings for our Times" lessons that focused on general conference talks that follow this tired formula:
1. The instructor gets a volunteer to read a paragraph from a talk
2. The instructor tells everyone that they like the paragraph
3. The instructor asks a question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, pray."
4. The instructor checks the clock, and unless it is at least 5 minutes passed when the class is supposed to end, they begin again at step 1
The new teaching materials for youth and now for Priesthood and Relief Society are titled "Teaching in the Savior's Way," and this focus is intended to do promote that. Rather than have a structured lesson from a manual, the philosophy is meant to provide opportunity to counsel and instruct based on the needs of the individuals. This format is intended to promote a more natural expression of truth, faith, and testimony, and less of a canned one-size-fits-all lesson.
This is exactly how Jesus taught. To some people, he emphasized truths using dramatic comparisons such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan. To others, he spoke more abstractly, such as his message to Nicodemus about being born again (John 3), or his teachings about the need to seek the bread of life to those who were hoping Jesus would give them a free meal (John 6). He spoke with impressive authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and with patience for little children (Mark 10). He knew how to handle those who were argumentative (Matthew 21:23-45), and those who needed help (Mark 2).
Jesus wanted people to think deeply about eternal truths. His approach encouraged people to search the scriptures and the words of the prophets, and persuaded people to pray, even though he did not emphasize the use of questions like "what are some ways we can follow the prophets?" or "who has a personal experience about this principle that they would be willing to share?" Though the words of prophets were fundamental to his message, he demonstrated their importance through application and demonstration rather than a shallow proclamation such as "I like what Isaiah said there."
For those who are assigned to teach in any capacity, I hope that this new focus encourages you to teach as Jesus did. Let the words of the prophets and the guidance of the Holy Ghost help you to persuade bad men to become good... and good men to become better... "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)
This coming year, these meetings will focus on the teachings of living prophets and apostles. This announcement is both exciting and terrifying.
Exciting because members of the church frequently take for granted that we enjoy the counsel of prophets and apostles who are guided by Jesus Christ. There have been times when only a small family such as that of Noah or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob enjoyed this type of guidance. In the days of Moses, or during the reign of the Kings of Judah and Israel, a small nation had access to prophetic guidance. The current availability of prophets to people around the globe is unprecedented, and frequently overlooked. Emphasis on these inspired messages in Sunday meetings provides an opportunity for those who attend to receive the servants of God.
Terrifying because many people have sat through "Teachings for our Times" lessons that focused on general conference talks that follow this tired formula:
1. The instructor gets a volunteer to read a paragraph from a talk
2. The instructor tells everyone that they like the paragraph
3. The instructor asks a question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, pray."
4. The instructor checks the clock, and unless it is at least 5 minutes passed when the class is supposed to end, they begin again at step 1
The new teaching materials for youth and now for Priesthood and Relief Society are titled "Teaching in the Savior's Way," and this focus is intended to do promote that. Rather than have a structured lesson from a manual, the philosophy is meant to provide opportunity to counsel and instruct based on the needs of the individuals. This format is intended to promote a more natural expression of truth, faith, and testimony, and less of a canned one-size-fits-all lesson.
This is exactly how Jesus taught. To some people, he emphasized truths using dramatic comparisons such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan. To others, he spoke more abstractly, such as his message to Nicodemus about being born again (John 3), or his teachings about the need to seek the bread of life to those who were hoping Jesus would give them a free meal (John 6). He spoke with impressive authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and with patience for little children (Mark 10). He knew how to handle those who were argumentative (Matthew 21:23-45), and those who needed help (Mark 2).
Jesus wanted people to think deeply about eternal truths. His approach encouraged people to search the scriptures and the words of the prophets, and persuaded people to pray, even though he did not emphasize the use of questions like "what are some ways we can follow the prophets?" or "who has a personal experience about this principle that they would be willing to share?" Though the words of prophets were fundamental to his message, he demonstrated their importance through application and demonstration rather than a shallow proclamation such as "I like what Isaiah said there."
For those who are assigned to teach in any capacity, I hope that this new focus encourages you to teach as Jesus did. Let the words of the prophets and the guidance of the Holy Ghost help you to persuade bad men to become good... and good men to become better... "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
The Problem with Underemphasizing Modesty
So, recently I ran into an article being shared by several LDS friends:
The Problem with Overemphasizing Modesty
The article is very well written, and emphasizes important points with respect to a female perspective. One of the opening points describes the author's attempts to help two young boys (who were expressing disapproval of a young woman wearing a two-piece swimsuit) to better understand modesty.
Reading the story, I was persuaded that he motives were clearly defined by her concern for the young woman, the object of the boys' attention. Since the author is a woman, this is perfectly understandable.
As a male, and with similar concern for the welfare of men, I felt motivated to add some additional commentary to some of the points made in the article (in italics).
1. When we reduce the concept of modesty to what females wear, we are reinforcing the very thing that modesty is supposed to help avoid: the sexual objectification of women's bodies.
There is definitely truth in this. Modesty goes beyond apparel on women. A well-covered individual that performs provocative dance moves, for example, is also immodest. Additionally, reducing the reasoning behind modesty to avoiding the sexual objectification of women's bodies contradicts most of the rest of the author's points... that modesty is about more than sexual objectification, and that it applies to both men and women.
2. Overemphasizing modesty can unintentionally teach that girls are responsible for boys' sexual thoughts and behaviors.
Without a doubt, there is no man (or woman) who should expect to stand before God at that great and judgement day and suppose that their inappropriate thoughts and/or behavior will be excused by claiming "the devil made me do it." This is true, even if the devil was literally trying to make them do it.
Consider the behavior of the daughter of Jared, who danced before Akish in order to manipulate him to murder Omer, the king of the Jaredites. (Ether 8:9-10) Of course, she didn't kill the king. She didn't make him ask to marry her. She just danced.
Consider the behavior of Herodias, who danced before king Herod, and then eventually requested the head of John the Baptist. (Mark 6:21-28) Of course, she didn't behead John. She didn't even know what to ask of the king, she just did what her mother had said.
Do we suppose that these women, who used their bodies and manipulated men, are completely guiltless? Would it be appropriate for a young woman to walk around nude in front of young men, since girls are not responsible for boys' sexual thoughts and behaviors? What if the young woman were only topless, or were only wearing underwear like the provocative models who part men with their money at lingerie stores in shopping malls?
Everyone can benefit from understanding that no one lives in a vacuum. Women are unfairly bombarded with negativity, disrespect, and incorrect expectations. Men are unfairly bombarded with images, movies, and sometimes even friends and associates, who portray women in provocative ways. Instead of saying that one group is not responsible for issues in another group (even when it is true), we ought to understand that everyone benefits from mutual respect. Men should never think that a girl's skimpy outfit provoked inappropriate behavior, and women ought to show compassion for the many men fighting internal battles against temptations by not adding to them.
3. Overemphasizing modesty can shame girls for having a feminine body and for physically developing into a woman.
This is true... and unfortunate. A woman may be trying hard to dress in a modest manner, and still seem provocative to some men. It is also true that a man may be trying hard to control their thoughts, and run into a provocative situation or pornographic image.
On the other hand, there is no shortage of voices who tell girls... particularly those with feminine figures, that their beauty should be displayed and admired when they actually mean to objectify and exploit these young women.
Underemphasizing modesty may be just as dangerous to men and women. There is no easy answer to this, and no single approach should be expected to be universally successful.
4. Overemphasizing modesty gives others implicit permission to judge and measure a woman’s dedication to the gospel, or “worthiness,” based on physical appearance.
People judge dedication and worthiness for multiple reasons, and none of them are appropriate, but few of them are baseless.
It is possible that the young man with ripped jean jacket and a mullet may be living the standards of the church. It is appropriate for his Bishop to ask him to cut his hair and wear a white shirt and tie before he blesses the sacrament, serves a mission, or even accompanies a senior companion in a home teaching visit, but it is wrong for others to suggest that his appearance jeopardizes his place in the kingdom of God.
The same ideas are just as applicable for young women.
5. Overemphasizing modesty in our young women may send a message that modesty does not apply to males.
While it is true that modesty applies to both men and women (see #4), let's not pretend that it applies differently to men and women. An honest examination of male sexuality accepts that men are driven by the visual so much more than women, that it is nearly impossible to compare them... One of the most honest and clear explanations of this fact can be found in this video:
The author concludes her article with suggestions to improve modesty conversations. Many of these ideas are excellent, and deserve consideration. I might also add the following:
The Problem with Overemphasizing Modesty
The article is very well written, and emphasizes important points with respect to a female perspective. One of the opening points describes the author's attempts to help two young boys (who were expressing disapproval of a young woman wearing a two-piece swimsuit) to better understand modesty.
Reading the story, I was persuaded that he motives were clearly defined by her concern for the young woman, the object of the boys' attention. Since the author is a woman, this is perfectly understandable.
As a male, and with similar concern for the welfare of men, I felt motivated to add some additional commentary to some of the points made in the article (in italics).
1. When we reduce the concept of modesty to what females wear, we are reinforcing the very thing that modesty is supposed to help avoid: the sexual objectification of women's bodies.
There is definitely truth in this. Modesty goes beyond apparel on women. A well-covered individual that performs provocative dance moves, for example, is also immodest. Additionally, reducing the reasoning behind modesty to avoiding the sexual objectification of women's bodies contradicts most of the rest of the author's points... that modesty is about more than sexual objectification, and that it applies to both men and women.
2. Overemphasizing modesty can unintentionally teach that girls are responsible for boys' sexual thoughts and behaviors.
Without a doubt, there is no man (or woman) who should expect to stand before God at that great and judgement day and suppose that their inappropriate thoughts and/or behavior will be excused by claiming "the devil made me do it." This is true, even if the devil was literally trying to make them do it.
Consider the behavior of the daughter of Jared, who danced before Akish in order to manipulate him to murder Omer, the king of the Jaredites. (Ether 8:9-10) Of course, she didn't kill the king. She didn't make him ask to marry her. She just danced.
Consider the behavior of Herodias, who danced before king Herod, and then eventually requested the head of John the Baptist. (Mark 6:21-28) Of course, she didn't behead John. She didn't even know what to ask of the king, she just did what her mother had said.
Do we suppose that these women, who used their bodies and manipulated men, are completely guiltless? Would it be appropriate for a young woman to walk around nude in front of young men, since girls are not responsible for boys' sexual thoughts and behaviors? What if the young woman were only topless, or were only wearing underwear like the provocative models who part men with their money at lingerie stores in shopping malls?
Everyone can benefit from understanding that no one lives in a vacuum. Women are unfairly bombarded with negativity, disrespect, and incorrect expectations. Men are unfairly bombarded with images, movies, and sometimes even friends and associates, who portray women in provocative ways. Instead of saying that one group is not responsible for issues in another group (even when it is true), we ought to understand that everyone benefits from mutual respect. Men should never think that a girl's skimpy outfit provoked inappropriate behavior, and women ought to show compassion for the many men fighting internal battles against temptations by not adding to them.
3. Overemphasizing modesty can shame girls for having a feminine body and for physically developing into a woman.
This is true... and unfortunate. A woman may be trying hard to dress in a modest manner, and still seem provocative to some men. It is also true that a man may be trying hard to control their thoughts, and run into a provocative situation or pornographic image.
On the other hand, there is no shortage of voices who tell girls... particularly those with feminine figures, that their beauty should be displayed and admired when they actually mean to objectify and exploit these young women.
Underemphasizing modesty may be just as dangerous to men and women. There is no easy answer to this, and no single approach should be expected to be universally successful.
4. Overemphasizing modesty gives others implicit permission to judge and measure a woman’s dedication to the gospel, or “worthiness,” based on physical appearance.
People judge dedication and worthiness for multiple reasons, and none of them are appropriate, but few of them are baseless.
It is possible that the young man with ripped jean jacket and a mullet may be living the standards of the church. It is appropriate for his Bishop to ask him to cut his hair and wear a white shirt and tie before he blesses the sacrament, serves a mission, or even accompanies a senior companion in a home teaching visit, but it is wrong for others to suggest that his appearance jeopardizes his place in the kingdom of God.
The same ideas are just as applicable for young women.
5. Overemphasizing modesty in our young women may send a message that modesty does not apply to males.
While it is true that modesty applies to both men and women (see #4), let's not pretend that it applies differently to men and women. An honest examination of male sexuality accepts that men are driven by the visual so much more than women, that it is nearly impossible to compare them... One of the most honest and clear explanations of this fact can be found in this video:
The author concludes her article with suggestions to improve modesty conversations. Many of these ideas are excellent, and deserve consideration. I might also add the following:
- Pornography is harmful
- Pornography is not limited to nude photographs and videos on the internet, it includes all forms of immodest and provocative clothing, speech, and behavior.
- Men and women are different
- While this may seem obvious, being aware of these differences can allow us to help one another to be better.
- Satan is real
- There are literal forces who want to use men to shame and degrade women. The same forces also want to use women to manipulate and destroy men. It is important not only to avoid temptation, but to avoid becoming a pawn of the tempter.
- Standards of modesty and morality strengthen men and women
- Imagine a world in which there were no sexually transmitted diseases, no children born into broken homes, and no damaging battles in family courts for custody and money. Universal adherence to the law of chastity would largely accomplish these feats. Faithful marriage and family life is perhaps the best way to protect men and women of all ages, and modesty and morality can, in part, represent the effort of individuals to realize this ideal.
It is definitely possible to overemphasize modesty, and doing so can be harmful in a variety of ways... but in our zeal to avoid such harms, let us not cast modesty aside. The counsel of Christ to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39) is intended to motivate every son and daughter of God to help one another in the path that leads to his Kingdom. Jesus did this not only by proclaiming love (John 15:11-13), but also by warning of potential danger (Matthew 7:15, Matthew 16:6). Let his model adorn each conversation regarding modesty.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Don't throw it out because it's old...
Modern religion for many Christians is defined by the Bible, and most particularly, the New Testament. Certainly the coming of Christ represented a revolutionary change to the religious tradition of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel... and it is right that even fundamental practices should be altered at the arrival of the Messiah.
For some, this change means the contents of the Old Testament can be mostly ignored: the old law is done away, and life and salvation come through Christ. There are numerous teachings of Apostles regarding new stances toward food restrictions, animal sacrifice, and the need for baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Even among Latter Day Saints, the Old Testament is perhaps the least popular portion of canonized scripture. This is unfortunate, as Latter Day Saints have access to the Book of Mormon. Unlike the lengthy chronological pause between the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon provides a seamless transition between the two times, and gives additional context to the changes that came with the coming of Christ.
From the very opening chapters in the Book of Mormon, the importance of Old Testament prophecy is established. In the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah, Lehi sees a vision with a pillar of fire. (1 Nephi 1:6) The parallel between this image and the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites at night is unmistakable. (Exodus 13:21)
Additionally, when Lehi had gone into hiding in the wilderness to avoid becoming a victim to the Godless people of Jerusalem, he sent his sons back at great peril to obtain the writings of the Old Testament. (1 Nephi 3)
These events from the very opening pages of the Book of Mormon seem to indicate that just because something happened before Christ, does not mean it is unimportant. In fact, a recurring theme in the Book of Mormon is that while God pleads with his people to repent and return to him frequently, that there are serious consequences for those that reject his saving power. It is both ironic and tragic that the Nephite people escaped wickedness and destruction in Jerusalem only to return to these things in the promised land.
Ultimately, the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon represent testimonies of the blessings that come from turning to God, and the tragedies that come from rejecting him. The New Testament may bring new practices, unique teachings, and fascinating perspectives... but in the end, there are still lessons to be learned from ancient prophets.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Mormons believe God sends prophets... but not always...
Frequently when the topic of lessons in Mormon Sunday School classes turns to revelation or to prophets, a part of President Hugh B. Brown's general conference talk in October 1967. Sunday School manuals present the material as follows:
Before President Brown was called as a General Authority, he spent some time in England working as a barrister, or attorney. He befriended a prominent Englishman who was a member of the House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain. The two men often discussed various subjects, including religion.
In 1939, when it appeared that World War II would soon break out, the English gentleman called Brother Brown into his office. He asked Brother Brown to defend his religious beliefs in the same way he would discuss a legal problem. In a general conference address, President Brown recalled part of their conversation:
“I began by asking, ‘May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?’
“‘I am.’
“‘I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?’
“‘I do!’”
The English gentleman said that he believed the biblical accounts of the Lord speaking to prophets. However, he maintained that such communication had stopped soon after the Resurrection of Christ. The conversation continued with another question from Brother Brown: “Why do you think it stopped?”
“‘I can’t say.’
“‘You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?’
“‘Not to my knowledge.’
“‘May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.’
“He said, ‘Of course that would be blasphemous.’
“‘Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.’
“‘No,’ he said, ‘God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.’
“‘Well, then, … the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.’
“And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, ‘Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.’
“My answer was, ‘He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 117–18; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1967, 36–37)
This experience articulates the beliefs of members of the LDS church effectively. Mormons believe the need for continuing revelation is obvious, and that it is consistent with the patterns and practices that God has always used.
As a member of the LDS church, I have always been surprised that the previously mentioned argument and associated train of thought has seemed to go unchallenged. Not that there are flaws in the argument, but that the position of the Mormon church is not so very different from the judge with whom President Brown spoke.
A fundamental aspect of Mormon faith is that the line of authority and organization that existed in the days of Christ was taken from the earth. Arguments that there is an unbroken line of authority mainly reside in the claims of Catholicism who maintain Papal authority was established with the Apostle Peter, however, the organization of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) was obviously not maintained.
Protestants must accept that there was a falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) because every one of their churches was established in protest of Papal authority.
Restorationists, such as Mormons, believe that the power of God was taken from the earth in the early centuries after Christ. Apostles, prophets, and priests did not exist, or if they did, they did not act as they had in ages past under the authority of God.
The question then becomes this for Protestants and Mormons:
Why did God stop speaking to men?
Is it because God lost the power to do so in the dark ages?
Of course not; that would be blasphemous.
Is it because God did not love the people that lived in those times? Is it possible that their lives had no purpose, and that he was unconcerned with the plagues, wars, and famines that afflicted them?
No. God loves all men and he is no respecter of persons.
Is it because in the dark ages that humanity had made such rapid strides in education, science, technology, and life that they did not need God? Is it possible that only as ages went on that God realized mankind again needed guidance, or that we have fallen from the superior state that we had in medieval times?
Certainly not. Perhaps more so in the middle ages than in any other age, mankind needed the voice of God.
Then why did God stop speaking to men? If continuing revelation is so critical to humanity, why did he withhold it for more than a thousand years?
Of course, the answer to the question emphasizes another fundamental belief in Mormonism: just because someone died without learning the truth, does not mean they are forever damned.
Jesus himself taught this:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)
Martha thought that Jesus was too late to heal her brother Lazarus because he had died:
"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die..." (John 11:21-26)
The conclusion is powerful. Not even death can separate God from blessing his beloved sons and daughters. Simply because people lived a thousand years ago (or even many thousands of years ago) does not mean that they are out of God's reach. The answer to the question why did God stop speaking to men? is that he didn't.
The Apostle Peter gave insight as to what Jesus did in the short time between his death and resurrection:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison... For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6)
Modern revelation adds to this truth. President Joseph F. Smith taught the following:
"But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:30-34)
As indicated above, vital ordinances that require a body can be performed vicariously for those who have died, that they too might have hope to take part in the resurrection of the saints:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)
Jesus will not let little things like thousands of years or death stand in his way of his work. Though there was a lack organization and priesthood power on the earth during the great apostasy, the Lord continued to speak to people via missionaries in the spirit world, and offers to them today opportunity to show the signs of baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and other ordinances through the efforts of his followers today.
Christ has the power and the love to ensure that all people have access to his message. God does send prophets, but not always: those that call themselves Christians also have the responsibility to help ourselves, our neighbors, and those that have gone before us. Modern Christians can help the living and the dead so that when Christ returns, it will truly be to save us all.
Before President Brown was called as a General Authority, he spent some time in England working as a barrister, or attorney. He befriended a prominent Englishman who was a member of the House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain. The two men often discussed various subjects, including religion.
In 1939, when it appeared that World War II would soon break out, the English gentleman called Brother Brown into his office. He asked Brother Brown to defend his religious beliefs in the same way he would discuss a legal problem. In a general conference address, President Brown recalled part of their conversation:
“I began by asking, ‘May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?’
“‘I am.’
“‘I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?’
“‘I do!’”
The English gentleman said that he believed the biblical accounts of the Lord speaking to prophets. However, he maintained that such communication had stopped soon after the Resurrection of Christ. The conversation continued with another question from Brother Brown: “Why do you think it stopped?”
“‘I can’t say.’
“‘You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?’
“‘Not to my knowledge.’
“‘May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.’
“He said, ‘Of course that would be blasphemous.’
“‘Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.’
“‘No,’ he said, ‘God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.’
“‘Well, then, … the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.’
“And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, ‘Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.’
“My answer was, ‘He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 117–18; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1967, 36–37)
This experience articulates the beliefs of members of the LDS church effectively. Mormons believe the need for continuing revelation is obvious, and that it is consistent with the patterns and practices that God has always used.
As a member of the LDS church, I have always been surprised that the previously mentioned argument and associated train of thought has seemed to go unchallenged. Not that there are flaws in the argument, but that the position of the Mormon church is not so very different from the judge with whom President Brown spoke.
A fundamental aspect of Mormon faith is that the line of authority and organization that existed in the days of Christ was taken from the earth. Arguments that there is an unbroken line of authority mainly reside in the claims of Catholicism who maintain Papal authority was established with the Apostle Peter, however, the organization of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) was obviously not maintained.
Protestants must accept that there was a falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) because every one of their churches was established in protest of Papal authority.
Restorationists, such as Mormons, believe that the power of God was taken from the earth in the early centuries after Christ. Apostles, prophets, and priests did not exist, or if they did, they did not act as they had in ages past under the authority of God.
The question then becomes this for Protestants and Mormons:
Why did God stop speaking to men?
Is it because God lost the power to do so in the dark ages?
Of course not; that would be blasphemous.
Is it because God did not love the people that lived in those times? Is it possible that their lives had no purpose, and that he was unconcerned with the plagues, wars, and famines that afflicted them?
No. God loves all men and he is no respecter of persons.
Is it because in the dark ages that humanity had made such rapid strides in education, science, technology, and life that they did not need God? Is it possible that only as ages went on that God realized mankind again needed guidance, or that we have fallen from the superior state that we had in medieval times?
Certainly not. Perhaps more so in the middle ages than in any other age, mankind needed the voice of God.
Then why did God stop speaking to men? If continuing revelation is so critical to humanity, why did he withhold it for more than a thousand years?
Of course, the answer to the question emphasizes another fundamental belief in Mormonism: just because someone died without learning the truth, does not mean they are forever damned.
Jesus himself taught this:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)
Martha thought that Jesus was too late to heal her brother Lazarus because he had died:
"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die..." (John 11:21-26)
The conclusion is powerful. Not even death can separate God from blessing his beloved sons and daughters. Simply because people lived a thousand years ago (or even many thousands of years ago) does not mean that they are out of God's reach. The answer to the question why did God stop speaking to men? is that he didn't.
The Apostle Peter gave insight as to what Jesus did in the short time between his death and resurrection:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison... For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6)
Modern revelation adds to this truth. President Joseph F. Smith taught the following:
"But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:30-34)
As indicated above, vital ordinances that require a body can be performed vicariously for those who have died, that they too might have hope to take part in the resurrection of the saints:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)
Jesus will not let little things like thousands of years or death stand in his way of his work. Though there was a lack organization and priesthood power on the earth during the great apostasy, the Lord continued to speak to people via missionaries in the spirit world, and offers to them today opportunity to show the signs of baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and other ordinances through the efforts of his followers today.
Christ has the power and the love to ensure that all people have access to his message. God does send prophets, but not always: those that call themselves Christians also have the responsibility to help ourselves, our neighbors, and those that have gone before us. Modern Christians can help the living and the dead so that when Christ returns, it will truly be to save us all.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Better Questions, Great Discussions
In the August 2013 issue of the Ensign, the LDS magazine, there was an article titled "Great Questions, Great Discussions" by Jack Lyon.
Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion. While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.
From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.
“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"
While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example. "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.
It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles. It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible. A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering. A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue. On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is. Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.
On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject. A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:
1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"
Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question. Below is an analysis of each one.
1. "What part has faith played in your life?"
Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
- the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
- the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
- the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
- the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal
Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve. When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.
2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"
This is actually an excellent question. Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor. Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.
3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"
This is a terrible question. Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea. What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow! I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith. This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."? Not good.
Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply. This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."
The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures. This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."
I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences. They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.
The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"
While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements). Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."
Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson. If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control. If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject. It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.
Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.
Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories. As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson... The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)
Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself. Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.
Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion. While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.
From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.
“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"
While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example. "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.
It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles. It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible. A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering. A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue. On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is. Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.
On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject. A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:
1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"
Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question. Below is an analysis of each one.
1. "What part has faith played in your life?"
Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
- the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
- the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
- the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
- the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal
Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve. When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.
2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"
This is actually an excellent question. Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor. Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.
3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"
This is a terrible question. Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea. What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow! I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith. This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."? Not good.
Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply. This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."
The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures. This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."
I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences. They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.
The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"
While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements). Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."
Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson. If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control. If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject. It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.
Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.
Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories. As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson... The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)
Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself. Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Anatomy of a High Council Talk
High Council Sunday... perhaps the most yawn-inducing event in all of Mormonism. Of course there are some individuals with this calling that do have some speaking ability, but it seems that the vast majority of gentlemen that address LDS congregations monthly are not chosen for their speaking abilities.
I frequently wonder if some of them know how terrible their talks are. When the 12-year-old youth speaker outshines them with a monotone reading of a random New Era article, it makes the audience wonder if they intend to give a horrible talk as some sort of punishment. Perhaps our ward's contributions to the Boy Scouts were low... perhaps we had poor attendance at the Stake fireside, or Stake Priesthood meeting... Perhaps the Stake Presidency just hates our ward... Wonder no longer; today we will analyze the anatomy of a High Council talk!
The format for this lighthearted analysis will consist of the high council speaker's words in bold and their thoughts in italics.
Wow, that youth speaker had way better material than me... maybe if I just take two minutes to arrange my papers, I can avoid an awkward transition. Hey! I remember this paper, it was something I doodled instead of preparing a talk! Best decision ever! Oh crap! A lot of people are staring at me... They don't look happy either... what can I say so that they never find out I was assigned to this ward because the Stake presidency can't stand them? Oh I know!
Brothers and Sisters, I bring you the love of the Stake Presidency...
Whew! That was close. Now I can just babble about them for a couple minutes... I just have to remember not to bring up the fact that this ward didn't contribute enough to Boy Scouts so I don't offend anyone. Although if they haven't already been offended by how tight an green my Scout shorts are, maybe it won't hurt... I'm getting sidetracked though... the number of screaming children has doubled since I started... I know! I can just tell them I worked hard on preparing my talk!
So anyway... I have been given an important topic today... it is the topic of prayer!
Heh! That did it! They know they will feel guilty if they don't listen to a talk about prayer! Crap... what do I say now?
When I got this topic, I was really excited...
Why are everyone's eyes glazing over? Do they know that I was lying about being excited about prayer? Heck, last night I fell asleep after 2 minutes of praying and woke up in a pool of my own drool 2 hours later...
I remember when I was a boy, my parents taught me to pray...
Or more accurately, they would spank me when I prayed for the Lions to win more football games instead of grandma to get better...
It's a lesson I've never forgotten...
Unless it's football season...
It reminds me of the scripture story about ...
Come on brain, don't fail me now...
Enoch.. who prayed all day and all night...
What are those primary kids whispering? Did I say something wrong? Enos...that's what they're saying? Ah crap...
Oh right... Enos... your kids are smarter than I am...
Condescending brats!
Anyway, Enos prayed all day and all night, and...
It looks like everyone is calming down now. I can just keep spouting random details about Enos and I will have like five minutes left. I wonder how much time I've used. Probably at least seven minutes out of my fifteen... I'll just look at the clock... oh crap, only two minutes!?!?!? But it felt like forever... I wonder if that's how the congregation feels... nah... they love me!
And so my Uncle Frank's cancer got worse, and we didn't know what to do...
What am I even saying? How did I get to Uncle Frank's cancer? Oh well, it has a lot of details, so that's sure to keep people occupied...
And he was coughing out blood and he had difficulty using the toilet... his vision wasn't great either, which made it difficult for him to enjoy his favorite game show, the Price is Right...
Heh! That was a great show... "Come on down!!!!"
And anyway, the cows would kick over the milk bucket and spill it all over... I would get so mad at them...
Is that the sound of applause? I know they must love me, but we probably shouldn't applaud in Sacrament meeting... oh wait... that's snoring...
And so that's why shopping on Sunday is bad... Sure, I enjoy a doughnut as much as the next guy... in fact, my wife tells me I enjoy them a bit more than the next guy... but I have a testimony that the word of wisdom helps us in our lives....
I'm on a roll now! Everything is coming together now!
...and that's when my son told me that he appreciated my example... and I'm not saying that to boast, I'm saying that the Savior has blessed me...
...probably more than you... Yeah, I'm both awesome AND humble!
...and I loved my mother... she was the best... even with her dementia and when she started fires in the care center that we sent her to...
Man I hated that care center... I hope my kids send me someplace nicer when I lose it...
...and that's what happens when you try to go fishing without bait... I mean what did you expect when...
What's that on my shoulder? Oh... it's the Bishop tapping his watch... well he doesn't have to glare at me...
Well brothers and sisters... Bishop is tapping his watch so I guess I should wrap it up... I just want to bear my testimony of prayer. I love prayer... and that reminds me of when my daughter was sick and she was just puking all over the place... it was the really gross...
Oh and that's just like when my sister ate that chicken that we had left out too long... that was awful...
...so it's a good thing I had health insurance... it's also a good thing to...
What now?!?! Oh it's the Bishop tapping his watch again... no wonder the Stake President doesn't like this ward... they don't even let you finish your train of thought...
Well... anyway... that's my testimony of prayer...
I think that talk went pretty well! I'm sure the reason all the people in the congregation are sleeping is because of the early meeting schedule...
Obviously this account is a bit tongue in cheek... but the kernel of truth at its core is that everyone could benefit from a little preparation, or with a greater understanding of oration. Obviously no one is going to be as good as Jesus, who astonished people with his power and authority, (Matthew 7:28-29) but it should be the practice of Christians to try to connect with their audience when expressing the importance of his gospel.
It is also understood that there are some people who will not accept or appreciate the truth regardless of the presentation method, but for those that are sitting in a church congregation, this is likely a very small number.
If you are assigned to give a talk, consider the negative feelings that come on high council Sunday, and try and avoid pointless details and incoherent ramblings. No one cares about how you prepare a talk unless it is really really good, and if they think it is, they will ask you. Don't waste time on that subject during the talk. Be mindful of the time. Even great orators that can hold an audience's attention for long stretches know the value of being concise. It is better to have a short talk with value and substance than a long talk that will be forgotten before the benediction.
Ultimately, know one is perfect, but it doesn't hurt to try to be better....
I frequently wonder if some of them know how terrible their talks are. When the 12-year-old youth speaker outshines them with a monotone reading of a random New Era article, it makes the audience wonder if they intend to give a horrible talk as some sort of punishment. Perhaps our ward's contributions to the Boy Scouts were low... perhaps we had poor attendance at the Stake fireside, or Stake Priesthood meeting... Perhaps the Stake Presidency just hates our ward... Wonder no longer; today we will analyze the anatomy of a High Council talk!
The format for this lighthearted analysis will consist of the high council speaker's words in bold and their thoughts in italics.
Wow, that youth speaker had way better material than me... maybe if I just take two minutes to arrange my papers, I can avoid an awkward transition. Hey! I remember this paper, it was something I doodled instead of preparing a talk! Best decision ever! Oh crap! A lot of people are staring at me... They don't look happy either... what can I say so that they never find out I was assigned to this ward because the Stake presidency can't stand them? Oh I know!
Brothers and Sisters, I bring you the love of the Stake Presidency...
Whew! That was close. Now I can just babble about them for a couple minutes... I just have to remember not to bring up the fact that this ward didn't contribute enough to Boy Scouts so I don't offend anyone. Although if they haven't already been offended by how tight an green my Scout shorts are, maybe it won't hurt... I'm getting sidetracked though... the number of screaming children has doubled since I started... I know! I can just tell them I worked hard on preparing my talk!
So anyway... I have been given an important topic today... it is the topic of prayer!
Heh! That did it! They know they will feel guilty if they don't listen to a talk about prayer! Crap... what do I say now?
When I got this topic, I was really excited...
Why are everyone's eyes glazing over? Do they know that I was lying about being excited about prayer? Heck, last night I fell asleep after 2 minutes of praying and woke up in a pool of my own drool 2 hours later...
I remember when I was a boy, my parents taught me to pray...
Or more accurately, they would spank me when I prayed for the Lions to win more football games instead of grandma to get better...
It's a lesson I've never forgotten...
Unless it's football season...
It reminds me of the scripture story about ...
Come on brain, don't fail me now...
Enoch.. who prayed all day and all night...
What are those primary kids whispering? Did I say something wrong? Enos...that's what they're saying? Ah crap...
Oh right... Enos... your kids are smarter than I am...
Condescending brats!
Anyway, Enos prayed all day and all night, and...
It looks like everyone is calming down now. I can just keep spouting random details about Enos and I will have like five minutes left. I wonder how much time I've used. Probably at least seven minutes out of my fifteen... I'll just look at the clock... oh crap, only two minutes!?!?!? But it felt like forever... I wonder if that's how the congregation feels... nah... they love me!
And so my Uncle Frank's cancer got worse, and we didn't know what to do...
What am I even saying? How did I get to Uncle Frank's cancer? Oh well, it has a lot of details, so that's sure to keep people occupied...
And he was coughing out blood and he had difficulty using the toilet... his vision wasn't great either, which made it difficult for him to enjoy his favorite game show, the Price is Right...
Heh! That was a great show... "Come on down!!!!"
And anyway, the cows would kick over the milk bucket and spill it all over... I would get so mad at them...
Is that the sound of applause? I know they must love me, but we probably shouldn't applaud in Sacrament meeting... oh wait... that's snoring...
And so that's why shopping on Sunday is bad... Sure, I enjoy a doughnut as much as the next guy... in fact, my wife tells me I enjoy them a bit more than the next guy... but I have a testimony that the word of wisdom helps us in our lives....
I'm on a roll now! Everything is coming together now!
...and that's when my son told me that he appreciated my example... and I'm not saying that to boast, I'm saying that the Savior has blessed me...
...probably more than you... Yeah, I'm both awesome AND humble!
...and I loved my mother... she was the best... even with her dementia and when she started fires in the care center that we sent her to...
Man I hated that care center... I hope my kids send me someplace nicer when I lose it...
...and that's what happens when you try to go fishing without bait... I mean what did you expect when...
What's that on my shoulder? Oh... it's the Bishop tapping his watch... well he doesn't have to glare at me...
Well brothers and sisters... Bishop is tapping his watch so I guess I should wrap it up... I just want to bear my testimony of prayer. I love prayer... and that reminds me of when my daughter was sick and she was just puking all over the place... it was the really gross...
Oh and that's just like when my sister ate that chicken that we had left out too long... that was awful...
...so it's a good thing I had health insurance... it's also a good thing to...
What now?!?! Oh it's the Bishop tapping his watch again... no wonder the Stake President doesn't like this ward... they don't even let you finish your train of thought...
Well... anyway... that's my testimony of prayer...
I think that talk went pretty well! I'm sure the reason all the people in the congregation are sleeping is because of the early meeting schedule...
Obviously this account is a bit tongue in cheek... but the kernel of truth at its core is that everyone could benefit from a little preparation, or with a greater understanding of oration. Obviously no one is going to be as good as Jesus, who astonished people with his power and authority, (Matthew 7:28-29) but it should be the practice of Christians to try to connect with their audience when expressing the importance of his gospel.
It is also understood that there are some people who will not accept or appreciate the truth regardless of the presentation method, but for those that are sitting in a church congregation, this is likely a very small number.
If you are assigned to give a talk, consider the negative feelings that come on high council Sunday, and try and avoid pointless details and incoherent ramblings. No one cares about how you prepare a talk unless it is really really good, and if they think it is, they will ask you. Don't waste time on that subject during the talk. Be mindful of the time. Even great orators that can hold an audience's attention for long stretches know the value of being concise. It is better to have a short talk with value and substance than a long talk that will be forgotten before the benediction.
Ultimately, know one is perfect, but it doesn't hurt to try to be better....
Monday, November 5, 2012
"Reading my scriptures, going to church, and praying are ways to help me ______ ?!?!? I'm going to these things every day for the rest of my life!" - No one ever
When Jesus taught, he did so in a manner that provoked deep thinking and spiritual investigation. He did not necessarily teach in the tone or manner that people expected. In some cases, he talked about simple things such as being poor in spirit and meek. (Matthew 5:3,5) In other cases, he boldly declared that he would reject many that came to him calling him Lord. (Matthew 7:21-23)
People were amazed when Jesus taught. He taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:29)
For 2013, the Mormon church has determined to re-work its curriculum for youth classes based on the same concepts as the missionary discussion replacement "Preach My Gospel." The new curriculum is titled "Come, Follow Me." It features the use of principles called "Teaching in the Savior's Way."
One of the concepts promoted by this style of teaching is the use of audience-appropriate material based on loose principles and outlines rather than pre-structured lessons. The use of this method provokes a combination of excitement and anxiety. I am excited at the prospect of people putting more thought into lesson preparation than cracking the manual open during Sacrament Meeting. I am nervous about the prospect of teachers flying by the seat of their pants or preparing something that is completely off-topic.
If nothing else, hopefully this method of teaching will produce better questions to ask class members. The worst question that can be asked in any lesson is the question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray." These questions are typically asked by well-meaning teachers, but they are hardly thought provoking, and used far too frequently. A lesson with the subject of the Holy Spirit almost inevitably features the question "What are some ways that we can have the spirit more in our lives?" A lesson about faith features the question "What are some ways that we can show our faith?" A lesson about Temple attendance asks "How can a person prepare to attend the Temple?" A lesson about strengthening families will ask "How do you strengthen your family?"
I have never known of anyone that sat up and started paying attention when the answer "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" was given and think to themselves "that's right! I need to read my scriptures, go to church, and pray! I'm going to do these tasks without fail from now on!"
I have found that questions that challenge me to define Christianity or understand scriptures are far more thought provoking than questions that can be answered by enumerable lists of well-known information. For example, if strong faith has been compared in the scriptures to moving mountains, then does that mean faith is generally weak since considering the low number of faith-based mountain moves? Thinking about how faith is a power (Matthew 17:20), and how it must also be based in truth (Alma 32:21) can lead to a greater understanding of how it works. Jesus questioned his disciples to challenge them to consider their faith asking what they believed. (Matthew 16:13-16)
Questions that can quickly be answered by "the atonement" are typically less effective as well. Of course the atonement of Christ is the center of Christian worship and doctrine, but this information is probably not news to anyone that has some knowledge of the faith. In general, if the answer to a question is painfully obvious, it probably should not be asked. If a teacher wishes to help people believe in the power of Christ's sacrifice, my experience is that testimony is superior to a simplistic question that can be answered. More thought provoking questions involving how ordinances apply the power of his sacrifice or the role of penitence and forgiveness are far more effective.
Ultimately, my hope is that teachers of Christianity everywhere will learn to speak with power and authority as Christ himself did. Inviting people to come to God is better accomplished when manuals are simply read aloud, or when questions to which everyone knows the answers are asked. The message of salvation is not casual; it should not be taught casually.
People were amazed when Jesus taught. He taught "as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:29)
For 2013, the Mormon church has determined to re-work its curriculum for youth classes based on the same concepts as the missionary discussion replacement "Preach My Gospel." The new curriculum is titled "Come, Follow Me." It features the use of principles called "Teaching in the Savior's Way."
One of the concepts promoted by this style of teaching is the use of audience-appropriate material based on loose principles and outlines rather than pre-structured lessons. The use of this method provokes a combination of excitement and anxiety. I am excited at the prospect of people putting more thought into lesson preparation than cracking the manual open during Sacrament Meeting. I am nervous about the prospect of teachers flying by the seat of their pants or preparing something that is completely off-topic.
If nothing else, hopefully this method of teaching will produce better questions to ask class members. The worst question that can be asked in any lesson is the question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray." These questions are typically asked by well-meaning teachers, but they are hardly thought provoking, and used far too frequently. A lesson with the subject of the Holy Spirit almost inevitably features the question "What are some ways that we can have the spirit more in our lives?" A lesson about faith features the question "What are some ways that we can show our faith?" A lesson about Temple attendance asks "How can a person prepare to attend the Temple?" A lesson about strengthening families will ask "How do you strengthen your family?"
I have never known of anyone that sat up and started paying attention when the answer "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" was given and think to themselves "that's right! I need to read my scriptures, go to church, and pray! I'm going to do these tasks without fail from now on!"
I have found that questions that challenge me to define Christianity or understand scriptures are far more thought provoking than questions that can be answered by enumerable lists of well-known information. For example, if strong faith has been compared in the scriptures to moving mountains, then does that mean faith is generally weak since considering the low number of faith-based mountain moves? Thinking about how faith is a power (Matthew 17:20), and how it must also be based in truth (Alma 32:21) can lead to a greater understanding of how it works. Jesus questioned his disciples to challenge them to consider their faith asking what they believed. (Matthew 16:13-16)
Questions that can quickly be answered by "the atonement" are typically less effective as well. Of course the atonement of Christ is the center of Christian worship and doctrine, but this information is probably not news to anyone that has some knowledge of the faith. In general, if the answer to a question is painfully obvious, it probably should not be asked. If a teacher wishes to help people believe in the power of Christ's sacrifice, my experience is that testimony is superior to a simplistic question that can be answered. More thought provoking questions involving how ordinances apply the power of his sacrifice or the role of penitence and forgiveness are far more effective.
Ultimately, my hope is that teachers of Christianity everywhere will learn to speak with power and authority as Christ himself did. Inviting people to come to God is better accomplished when manuals are simply read aloud, or when questions to which everyone knows the answers are asked. The message of salvation is not casual; it should not be taught casually.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Keep hands, feet, and personal experiences to yourself!
While many people fear public speaking, there is one huge advantage over a more interactive teaching approach: the public speaker controls every word. A person giving a talk or a speech never has to worry about someone raising their hand in the congregation and interjecting unpredictable content.
In Mormon worship services, the first hour is devoted to the observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to the presentation of public speakers on various religious subjects. The subsequent hours feature a more interactive style of instruction where teachers present material, and frequently invite class members to answer questions or offer comments and insight to complement the main subjects. While this method can provide value to what might otherwise be a monotonous lecture, there is a risk in audience participation.
There are various offenses that occur when class members contribute:
1. The stupid question - There are some who believe there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong. The off topic question may only be a distraction, but it can be much worse. An instructor teaching about faith is not likely to be able to assist a class member decipher the mysteries of facsimile number 2.
2. Deep doctrine diving - Maybe Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Maybe women will have hairy legs in heaven. Maybe the class member that brings up subjects like these should have kept their mouth shut.
3. Redundant, repetitious statements that have already been said - Faith is important, but everyone understood that the first time it was mentioned. It is OK to say 'never mind' if you had your hand raised and someone else gave your answer.
4. The Filibuster - It is not always easy to be concise, but the class member that takes ten minutes to get to a point can probably shorten their comment. There may be on the rare occasion a person that is able to present a complicated and well-thought out point that takes some time to explain properly... but when class members are actively comparing their Angry Birds scores on their phones, take a hint and wrap it up.
5. What the? I Don't Even - Albuquerque; snorkel; lasers; tofu; steam rollers; concrete; purple; Sherlock Holmes. See? I can do it too!
As bad as all of these things are, perhaps the most annoying crime against humanity that occurs in the classroom is:
6. The personal experience - Perhaps somewhere in the personal experience, there may be a nugget of worth. Finding it can be similar to finding the good chunk of meat in a slab that is crawling with maggots. They are always filled with completely unnecessary details. Here is an example of a hypothetical personal experience that represents the typical (perhaps slightly exaggerated) recitation with commentary in parenthesis:
So I actually have an experience with sharing the gospel. (Please be short, please be short)
There's this guy I met who is actually from Minnesota... (Hold the phone!!! Minnesota!?! I'm sure that is pertinent to sharing the gospel.)
...and he came here to go to school... (Perhaps you could also tell us about his application process. What were his SAT scores? How does the cost of tuition and living compare to those found in Minnesota?)
...and he's actually going to the University of Utah... (Yes, but where does he park his car? I'm not sure I have enough details here.)
He's majoring in liberal arts... (Because major affects his eligibility for salvation apparently...)
...and he's really athletic, you know kind of a jock type? Ha ha ha ha! (I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?)
So I started talking to him about two weeks ago. Well actually it was more like two and a half weeks. Well, two weeks and three days... (I'm not sure I can appreciate this personal experience unless you tell me what time it was.)
Yeah, we work at the same place doing sales. So he's really outgoing like me! (Is he really outgoing? We don't really know unless you give us his the results of his personality test, his horoscope, and the last three messages he had in his fortune cookies...)
So anyways, he saw me being all righteous, you know... not drinking Dr. Pepper... and he was like, "I want to be like you man, you're always so happy!" (Yeah... who wouldn't want to be like you?)
So I didn't really think about it for a while, but a few days later I was eating lunch and I ran into him. I was like "Hey what's up?" Then we started talking about the weather and his school... (I wonder if there's something more enlightening on Facebook. Good thing I have a smart phone!)
And we were talking about how hard it is to go to school and work, and I told him about one way I deal with stress... you know... drinking Coke and listening to Godsmack or actually hip hop, which is my favorite... (That is a great tweet! I'm glad I follow Adam Baldwin on Twitter...)
But the other thing I do to deal with stress is to read the Ensign magazine... because the prophets give me comfort and peace. I don't mean they make me fall asleep though... Ha ha ha ha ha!! (Unlike your personal experience... I really wish I had a pillow...)
And anyway, it was a good talk, and I felt like I was being a good example to him, and I followed the promptings I received. (Please be wrapping up, please be wrapping up)
So I haven't talked to him since, so I don't know what he thought about it. So anyway, I'm still trying to do missionary work by my example... (So the story has almost no point? Well at least he's done now...)
And so that's an important lesson I learned. I learned that even in Utah County there are still people that need to learn about the Savior. I learned that we can be examples everywhere we go. I learned that... (Are you seriously still going on!?!?! Unbelievable!!!)
...you've got to have that faith and that example. You've got to have that spirit of missionary work. You can't be afraid to open your mouth... (I really wish you would shut your mouth.)
You can make a difference, because you never know when you'll meet someone from Minnesota who needs to hear the gospel. (As opposed to people from other states who I guess are OK?)
So anyway, I'll keep working with him, and who knows? Ha ha ha ha! (.............)
All hyperboles aside, it may actually be possible to share a personal experience in a manner that is concise, appropriate, and positive. This takes a degree of skill that few have achieved. For the vast majority of class members, the following tips can help prevent you from ruining a lesson:
1. Be concise - Unless you have an accent or otherwise entertaining voice, most people probably do not want to hear the sound of you talking.
2. Stay on topic - Details that you think are important such as schools, occupations, hobbies, carpet colors... they aren't actually important. Reinforcing universal general principals closely associated with the lesson topic should be the goal of all participants.
3. Think before you speak - In class, look to your left and right. Realize that there are people there. Would they be enlightened, uplifted, or edified by what you're thinking of saying? Does your comment or question provoke thought, provide clarity, or enhance context? Consider keeping your hand down and your mouth shut if in doubt. (Proverbs 17:28)
In Mormon worship services, the first hour is devoted to the observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to the presentation of public speakers on various religious subjects. The subsequent hours feature a more interactive style of instruction where teachers present material, and frequently invite class members to answer questions or offer comments and insight to complement the main subjects. While this method can provide value to what might otherwise be a monotonous lecture, there is a risk in audience participation.
There are various offenses that occur when class members contribute:
1. The stupid question - There are some who believe there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong. The off topic question may only be a distraction, but it can be much worse. An instructor teaching about faith is not likely to be able to assist a class member decipher the mysteries of facsimile number 2.
2. Deep doctrine diving - Maybe Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Maybe women will have hairy legs in heaven. Maybe the class member that brings up subjects like these should have kept their mouth shut.
3. Redundant, repetitious statements that have already been said - Faith is important, but everyone understood that the first time it was mentioned. It is OK to say 'never mind' if you had your hand raised and someone else gave your answer.
4. The Filibuster - It is not always easy to be concise, but the class member that takes ten minutes to get to a point can probably shorten their comment. There may be on the rare occasion a person that is able to present a complicated and well-thought out point that takes some time to explain properly... but when class members are actively comparing their Angry Birds scores on their phones, take a hint and wrap it up.
5. What the? I Don't Even - Albuquerque; snorkel; lasers; tofu; steam rollers; concrete; purple; Sherlock Holmes. See? I can do it too!
As bad as all of these things are, perhaps the most annoying crime against humanity that occurs in the classroom is:
6. The personal experience - Perhaps somewhere in the personal experience, there may be a nugget of worth. Finding it can be similar to finding the good chunk of meat in a slab that is crawling with maggots. They are always filled with completely unnecessary details. Here is an example of a hypothetical personal experience that represents the typical (perhaps slightly exaggerated) recitation with commentary in parenthesis:
So I actually have an experience with sharing the gospel. (Please be short, please be short)
There's this guy I met who is actually from Minnesota... (Hold the phone!!! Minnesota!?! I'm sure that is pertinent to sharing the gospel.)
...and he came here to go to school... (Perhaps you could also tell us about his application process. What were his SAT scores? How does the cost of tuition and living compare to those found in Minnesota?)
...and he's actually going to the University of Utah... (Yes, but where does he park his car? I'm not sure I have enough details here.)
He's majoring in liberal arts... (Because major affects his eligibility for salvation apparently...)
...and he's really athletic, you know kind of a jock type? Ha ha ha ha! (I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?)
So I started talking to him about two weeks ago. Well actually it was more like two and a half weeks. Well, two weeks and three days... (I'm not sure I can appreciate this personal experience unless you tell me what time it was.)
Yeah, we work at the same place doing sales. So he's really outgoing like me! (Is he really outgoing? We don't really know unless you give us his the results of his personality test, his horoscope, and the last three messages he had in his fortune cookies...)
So anyways, he saw me being all righteous, you know... not drinking Dr. Pepper... and he was like, "I want to be like you man, you're always so happy!" (Yeah... who wouldn't want to be like you?)
So I didn't really think about it for a while, but a few days later I was eating lunch and I ran into him. I was like "Hey what's up?" Then we started talking about the weather and his school... (I wonder if there's something more enlightening on Facebook. Good thing I have a smart phone!)
And we were talking about how hard it is to go to school and work, and I told him about one way I deal with stress... you know... drinking Coke and listening to Godsmack or actually hip hop, which is my favorite... (That is a great tweet! I'm glad I follow Adam Baldwin on Twitter...)
But the other thing I do to deal with stress is to read the Ensign magazine... because the prophets give me comfort and peace. I don't mean they make me fall asleep though... Ha ha ha ha ha!! (Unlike your personal experience... I really wish I had a pillow...)
And anyway, it was a good talk, and I felt like I was being a good example to him, and I followed the promptings I received. (Please be wrapping up, please be wrapping up)
So I haven't talked to him since, so I don't know what he thought about it. So anyway, I'm still trying to do missionary work by my example... (So the story has almost no point? Well at least he's done now...)
And so that's an important lesson I learned. I learned that even in Utah County there are still people that need to learn about the Savior. I learned that we can be examples everywhere we go. I learned that... (Are you seriously still going on!?!?! Unbelievable!!!)
...you've got to have that faith and that example. You've got to have that spirit of missionary work. You can't be afraid to open your mouth... (I really wish you would shut your mouth.)
You can make a difference, because you never know when you'll meet someone from Minnesota who needs to hear the gospel. (As opposed to people from other states who I guess are OK?)
So anyway, I'll keep working with him, and who knows? Ha ha ha ha! (.............)
All hyperboles aside, it may actually be possible to share a personal experience in a manner that is concise, appropriate, and positive. This takes a degree of skill that few have achieved. For the vast majority of class members, the following tips can help prevent you from ruining a lesson:
1. Be concise - Unless you have an accent or otherwise entertaining voice, most people probably do not want to hear the sound of you talking.
2. Stay on topic - Details that you think are important such as schools, occupations, hobbies, carpet colors... they aren't actually important. Reinforcing universal general principals closely associated with the lesson topic should be the goal of all participants.
3. Think before you speak - In class, look to your left and right. Realize that there are people there. Would they be enlightened, uplifted, or edified by what you're thinking of saying? Does your comment or question provoke thought, provide clarity, or enhance context? Consider keeping your hand down and your mouth shut if in doubt. (Proverbs 17:28)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)