Elder Scott's Talk

[consiglieri]

That you believe Elder Scott provided "tacit endorsement" of the teacher employing incorrect gospel-teaching methods seems delusional and somewhat self-serving. I know I can see nothing in his remarks that would logically lead to that conclusion.

Elder Scott didn't say the second teacher's methods were "incorrect" . . .

[Nomad]

Elder Scott didn't say the second teacher's methods were "incorrect" . . .

It would appear that Elder Scott's intended meaning and your understanding of the same are like two ships that almost collided in a fog, but which have since sailed far distant from one another, never to meet again.

[wenglund]

I figured that Elder Cook's comments would stire some discussion here. However, it never occured to me that the second example of teaching was applicable to anyone in particular that has been posting here.

What I didn't figure is that it would be misconstrued into a supposed "impressive backhand".

But, no harm, no foul.

Thanks, -Wade

[consiglieri]

I figured that Elder Cook's comments would stire some discussion here.

What did Elder Cook say?

One of the problems with listening to conference via dial-up internet connection without the visuals is that it is hard to keep track of who is speaking at any given time unless it is somebody with a distinctive voice.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Dowdie37]

I believe that when the people are prideful, everything seems to cut and like one of the posters stated we live in a day where everything is about building self esteem, or rather. pride. That is when we must be spoken to with plainness and sharpness in order to cut through our false self-esteem.

True self-esteem is based upon what the Lord has done or given to us through love, knowing who we are eternally. It isn't about what we have done in the worldly accomplishments.

Those using the church positions to gratify their prideful selves, (a thing which I have personally witnessed all of my life) then the people they are supposedly serving become weakened and not editfied.

[Deborah]

I really enjoyed Elder Scott's talk and, Consig I admit I thought of you. Not necessarily because of what you might be teaching but because of the controversy you like to stir up on the board about what you teach.

I think his point was very simply to make sure one is teaching with the spirit, and with humility. I don't think he was saying that one shouldn't bring in supplementary material, but that it should be with the purpose of enhancing the message of the lesson and not as he said to show off one's knowledge (and I've been in many classes where there has been someone if not the teacher guilty of this).

I always enjoy the messages of Elder Scott, though if I'm really tired he can make me doze off because he is so soft spoken and monotone. But he is the dearest of Apostles and I really try to listen to what he has to say.

[cinepro]

Of course, I can only wonder what would have happened had Elder Scott had been in Consig's class for the lesson 31.

[jadams_4242]

Consig,

I felt that Elder Scott's talk was excellent. That said, that one comment about the teaching style seemed out of place with the rest of the actual talk. Very strange. Additionally, I think the point he was trying to make was that we need to make sure we are seeking to teach by the Spirit, because the Spirit will teach us all things and without we cannot teach the Gospel. Unfortunately, most likely because he had a limited amount of time to speak and the teacher comment wasn't even the main thrust, it came out as inferring that teachers who have external quotes or who are academic are not teaching by the Spirit. This will indeed lead to the castigation of many good, spiritual, and educated Sunday School and other Church teachers. I know that there are several people in my ward, newer members (newlyweds who have only been here a few months and don't know me or my degree or anything else like that), who do not appreciate my historical comments that expand on a topic, even though they are presented in a faith promoting way to further our joy in the Gospel and trust in its leaders. There are always those elements in the church who will look upon all academics as arrogant and thinking they know better than God or the Apostles, when in reality I (cannot speak for you or others) have the utmost faith in the restored Gospel and its leaders, most especially Jesus Christ.

Fortunately, if anyone tries to bring up Elder Scott's talk to me in a way that would indicate not to be a "smarty", I will kindly walk them through the concept of teaching by the Spirit, regardless of material, and then point them to Elder Holland's talk in the same conference wherein he mentions Ethan Smith, Solomon Spaulding, and uses an obscure (but meaningful) reference to Hyrum Smith turning a page over in the Book of Mormon before martyrdom, all while Elder Holland held that actual volume that was Hyrum's. Those actions and references could be viewed as intellectual puffing and showmanship (look what I have!), but I for one view it as inspired and accompanied by one of the most powerful witnesses of the Spirit I have felt in years.

Elder Scott is one of the most loving apostles I know of. I cannot see him ever meaning to imply academics should not be heard in Church.

Besides... he looks like a mad scientist. What isn't to love about this Apostle?

Yes looks are everthing in my opinion;

[notHagoth7]

It would appear that Elder Scott's intended meaning and your understanding of the same are like two ships that almost collided in a fog, but which have since sailed far distant from one another, never to meet again.

Condemnation isn't constructive. Nothing is final until it's all over.

Despite whatever differences people might temporarily have, we're all allowed room and space to learn and grow.

If God is patient with us, we can certainly afford to be patient with one another. Wouldn't you agree?

[Calm]

Another thing I found troubling is that any Sunday school teacher who is not in Mexico City who had Elder Scott sit in for the class during the past year is going to be feeling pretty bad about now.

Surely that would depend on whether or not they taught to be interesting or with the Spirit.

I think if Elder Scott really had such an impression about a particular Sunday school teacher, he should have just spoken to that teacher personally after class, and not waited to bring him up at General Conference.

Is there any indication (I haven't had a chance to read the talk yet) that he didn't do this as well?

I think it is important for every teacher to reexamine the motivations behind their teaching and perhaps, hopefully use this moment of self-examination not so much to wallow in self-pity or embarrassment if they find themselves to be lacking, but to recommit to teaching with the Spirit.

add-on:

But, at the same time, i think one of the things we have to learn as adults is the ability to take chastizement and accept correction, especially when it's given in a spirit of love and concern.

Excellent point, bluebell.

[Jeff K.]

There are talks that are hard to take for some of us, easy for others. I heard more than few conference talks that required some heavy introspection on my part. They have always been simple and straightforward, and yet, something about them strikes deep.

[notHagoth7]

Surely that would depend on whether or not they taught to be interesting or with the Spirit.

...false dichotomy...

I think it is important for every teacher [parent, spouse, etc.] to reexamine the motivations behind their teaching and perhaps, hopefully use this moment of self-examination...to recommit to teaching with the Spirit.

...verbiage added... Good stuff.

[ERMD]

2 Nephi 16:1-5

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

4 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did exhort my brethren, with all diligence, to keep the commandments of the Lord.

5 And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord; insomuch that I had joy and great hopes of them, that they would walk in the paths of righteousness.

For what it's worth...

[Calm]

...false dichotomy...

Didn't meant to present it that way, meant in the sense of what was their top priority.

[notHagoth7]

Didn't meant to present it that way, meant in the sense of what was their top priority.

[Jeff K.]

Condemnation isn't constructive. Nothing is final until it's all over.

Despite whatever differences people might temporarily have, we're all allowed room and space to learn and grow.

If God is patient with us, we can certainly afford to be patient with one another. Wouldn't you agree?

Enough prophets and even Christ have condemned to show that its constructiveness remains open to use. I would not say what prophets have done in the past when they have condemned has at times been very constructive. It often cuts through the dross of pride and those willing to hear it are also willing to humbly submit and change their ways.

[notHagoth7]

You should raise the bar on your standard of "impressive."

Perhaps. *If* I failed to interpret Senator's subtext correctly.

However, based on Senator's recent posts, I suspect I understood his/her intent quite well.

[notHagoth7]

Enough prophets and even Christ have condemned to show that its constructiveness remains open to use. I would not say what prophets have done in the past when they have condemned has at times been very constructive. It often cuts through the dross of pride and those willing to hear it are also willing to humbly submit and change their ways.

That is valid in this context only *if* one's appointed sphere is to be a prophet to the person one happens to be condemning, or to those listening.

Fair enough?

[structurecop]

One of the problems with listening to conference via dial-up internet connection without the visuals is that it is hard to keep track of who is speaking at any given time unless it is somebody with a distinctive voice.

I think your testimony of following the prophets would be a lot strong if you had broadband. Do they offer it in your area?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 October 2009 - 02:02 PM, said:

Enough prophets and even Christ have condemned to show that its constructiveness remains open to use. I would not say what prophets have done in the past when they have condemned has at times been very constructive. It often cuts through the dross of pride and those willing to hear it are also willing to humbly submit and change their ways.

That is valid in this context only *if* one's appointed sphere is to be a prophet to the person one happens to be condemning, or to those listening.

Fair enough?

Ones appointed sphere is found in one of two ways. One is through the calling of what needs to be done. Another is when the spirit moves. I think then it is fair because in both the authority is given.

That does not mean change church policy or direction, which is an entirely different matter and has no authority over the church.

When something is wrong, it is plain wrong and to say otherwise would almost be a sin of commission.

[notHagoth7]

Fisticuffs?

Not quite. I've searched TPJS (where I'm reasonably certain I've read it before), and online, and haven't found the citation (yet).

It basically said that when someone criticized him, instead of lashing back, he'd stop, reflect, and see what truth there might be in what had been said. Then, grateful for the insight, he would attempt to move forward with that new clarity to correct the flaw or mistake he previously didn't know he had.

That's an extremely loose paraphrase, but that's the gist of it.

[notHagoth7]

When something is wrong, it is plain wrong and to say otherwise would almost be a sin of commission.

I agree.

At the same time, there's a tragic difference between saying something is wrong and condemning. (If one understands the meaning of condemnation.)

Such a statement by someone beyond their sphere is, in my view, a severe breech of decency, a catalyst for rancor, and a potential vacuum for hope. It is, in my view, beyond unkind.

Does that distinction make sense?

[consiglieri]

Not quite. I've searched TPJS (where I'm reasonably certain I've read it before), and online, and haven't found the citation (yet).

Is this the same Joseph Smith who got into a brawl with his brother for crossing him in a High Priests' meeting?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[rpn]

My thought was that I do not imagine any person who has tried to do their best and felt the spirit in the pursuit thereof confirm what he is doing as a teacher to be the least bit concerned about the talk. And it won't hurt every teacher in the church to examine their teaching style, intention,and calling for ways to improve.

[Jeff K.]

I agree.

At the same time, there's a tragic difference between saying something is wrong and condemning. (If one understands the meaning of condemnation.)

Such a statement by someone beyond their sphere is, in my view, a severe breech of decency, a catalyst for rancor, and a potential vacuum for hope. It is, in my view, beyond unkind.

Does that distinction make sense?

The tragedy is not condemning a wrong. That is with the full understanding of what it is to condemn. Nor is it beyond the sphere when the spirit dictates, and certainly not a breech of decency.

If one were to see a mans testimony being undermined by another. That man should be condemned and the wrong should be made clear. It would be indecent to simply tsk tsk and say it is wrong what that man is doing. Drawing another away from the Lord should be condemned.

To say something is wrong (ie seperates us from the Lord) is to condemn it.

It appears to me you are dancing around the idea of politeness. Sometimes being polite and with soft words is good, when called for by the spirit, just as being more assertive is called for by the spirit. On the other hand, prophets have sometimes felt that being polite is not sufficiently efficacious in stopping what is a dangerous trend or act.

Rancor by the way, is usually the reaction of those who take the truth in a hard way, not for those who expose the truth to those who need it.

The distinction you make, I believe, is that we should always be polite. I don't believe we should "always" be polite or more to the point "politic". I think that being politic in how we present ourselves is when the respect is mutual in regard to distinct belief systems. I am very polite with many of my Muslim and Catholic and Atheists (among others) since we have a certain respect for positions that cannot be proven but heartfelt. However where such respect ceases to exist, where there dishonest attempts to crawl over or around key issues, well then we should be clear and strong in the truth. Both within and without the church.

Some would call Hollands talk rancorous (as we can see). I would call his talk, just, without politic, and to the point, sealed with the testimony of an apostle. For some it has indeed fallen hard on them.

The tragedy I see (if I may use an analogy) is softly tossing wet tissues at a house that is in flames.