Elder Scott's Talk

[Jeff K.]

notHagoth7, on 05 October 2009 - 03:48 PM, said:

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?

A brawl regarding High Priests? Are you certain of the facts? Or is that more historical interpretation?

You seem to presume interpretation as fact.... It is not a good thing to do as a teacher.

[BlueDreams]

Any thoughts?

There's a lot of teachers in Mexico....and probably a good number who've had him in their class. I doubt he's only visited one. If the teacher saw himself in it, then I'd hope he'd go about and see that he re-evaluate what's the enphasis in his lessons.

I took a moment to think about it as I've had the oppurtunity to be a gospel doctrine teacher. I enjoy having interesting lessons and for a second it rubbed me wrong....but I deduced that as my own worry that I could have been that guy in Mexico. So I went through a check list in my head while he was talking to see if I fit it. What were my motivations for planning the lessons as I did? What were my reasons for putting this or that in? What type of spirit did I have when I gave this or that example? Was it appropriate for the audience at hand? Was the audience spiritually edified by what was given? It was a nice way of re-evaluating what I've done in the past and a good reminder for doing the same in the future.

So I didn't find it inappropriate at all.

With luv,

BD

[notHagoth7]

The distinction you make, I believe, is that we should always be polite.

You misunderstand the intent of my responses.

(from wiki)

Condemnation or condemned may refer to:

* a strongly-worded rebuke, such as condemning violations of human rights

* Damnation, the antithesis of salvation

If you look back to the post I was replying to, you'll see quite clearly that it was condemnation that matched the second definition that I was strongly objecting to.

THAT is the distinction.

[Jeff K.]

I do not see it as being within my power or anyone's to condemn to damnation unless called to do so and one had better be very very sure of such condemnation. Otherwise such damnation is reserved exclusively to He who paid the ransom and Heavenly Father.

I speak of condemnation in the sense of a strongly worded rebuke, which at times is required. I appreciate you making the distinction in a more lucid manner.

[Olavarria]

I think Elder Scott was spot on.

[MorningStar]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Elder Scott using a general example to teach us that we need to teach what the Spirit directs and leave our own agenda out of it. We had a terrible GD teacher who spent the entire time lecturing, asked no questions, and only wanted to show what a great scriptorian he was. If anyone raised their hand to disagree about anything, he became really angry. Later when he was teaching the priests, someone disagreed with him. He walked out and never came back. Neither did his wife. This guy who was usually the most argumentative said, "I didn't even say anything!" After he broke the silence, everyone cracked-up.

[Jeff K.]

I knew a similar teacher of the priests. Our bishopric had to do a great deal of damage control on these young men. The tragedy was that they were at the stage of preparing for missions. The speculative history taught them as doctrine ended with two deciding they would not go on missions. I don't think teachers always know what power they hold over those they teach.

[juliann]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Elder Scott using a general example to teach us that we need to teach what the Spirit directs and leave our own agenda out of it. We had a terrible GD teacher who spent the entire time lecturing, asked no questions, and only wanted to show what a great scriptorian he was. If anyone raised their hand to disagree about anything, he became really angry. Later when he was teaching the priests, someone disagreed with him. He walked out and never came back. Neither did his wife. This guy who was usually the most argumentative said, "I didn't even say anything!" After he broke the silence, everyone cracked-up.

Haha. Years ago we had one of those teachers who saw everything in black and white...and folk lore. I was always objecting. One day he decided to preach that the church of the devil was the Catholic church in the middle of a Gospel Doctrine lesson. I countered several times. A couple new to the ward from a Catholic family walked out (and never came back.) At that point, I became more insistent and he began to pound on the black board with his fist declaring it to be his testimony. The bishop addressed it the next Sunday which was F&T but the real punishment for everyone who silently sat by was the testimony of another man who was apparently a new member. He got up and read a complete Reader's Digest story about a ship chaplain who went down with the ship to save those of different religions....for 20 minutes.

[MorningStar]

I knew a similar teacher of the priests. Our bishopric had to do a great deal of damage control on these young men. The tragedy was that they were at the stage of preparing for missions. The speculative history taught them as doctrine ended with two deciding they would not go on missions. I don't think teachers always know what power they hold over those they teach.

Sorry, meant to say it was the high priests. Now picture the guy who spoke up as a crabby elderly man and it's even funnier. (I think so.)

Haha. Years ago we had one of those teachers who saw everything in black and white...and folk lore. I was always objecting. One day he decided to preach that the church of the devil was the Catholic church in the middle of a Gospel Doctrine lesson. I countered several times. A couple new to the ward from a Catholic family walked out (and never came back.) At that point, I became more insistent and he began to pound on the black board with his fist declaring it to be his testimony. The bishop addressed it the next Sunday which was F&T but the real punishment for everyone who silently sat by was the testimony of another man who was apparently a new member. He got up and read a complete Reader's Digest story about a ship chaplain who went down with the ship to save those of different religions....for 20 minutes.

Oh man. I guess I would prefer Reader's Digest to that guy who got up to read his statement about Prop 8 being wrong. That's horrible what your GD teacher did.

[Jeff K.]

The Catholic Church being the church of the devil is speculative and certainly not part of the manual. Its a shame the teacher did not follow the manual properly, which apparently was the point in Elder Scott's talk.

[consiglieri]

A brawl regarding High Priests? Are you certain of the facts?

A brawl between Joseph Smith and William Smith during a high council meeting holding a trial in Kirtland, Ohio on October 29, 1835?

Yes, I'd say I was pretty certain of the facts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[changed]

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

(New Testament | Matthew 15:8 - 9)

I think elder Scott was just saying that it was better to have your heart in the right place...

you know how sometimes people use the wrong words, but the message still comes through, and you understand what they are trying to say?

or at other times people use carefully chosen words that are PC etc. etc. and yet an entirely different message comes across?

No matter what you say, what is in your heart comes through. I have been motivated/changed more by those with a good heart, than those who are learned and can spout off a bunch of interesting facts. Interesting yes, but motivational? No.

you know Mary in "Pride and Prejudice"?

Mary: Mary is the only plain Bennet sister, and rather than join in some of the family activities, she reads, although is often impatient for display. She works hard for knowledge and accomplishment, but has neither genius nor taste. At the ball at Netherfield, she embarrasses Elizabeth by singing badly.

She tries to impress everyone with everything she knows, is a book worm, thinks herself smarter than everyone, often gives others advice, or quotes - and she has no friends... she lives in a little ivory tower rather than in reality, she is disconnected from everyone and everything. Her goal is to appear smart in front of everyone, rather than to focus on others, and what the needs of others are, who others are... it is a rather self-absorbed way of being. (I only know because I tend to be a little like her .

JMO.

[consiglieri]

you know Mary in "Pride and Prejudice"?

Mary: Mary is the only plain Bennet sister, and rather than join in some of the family activities, she reads, although is often impatient for display. She works hard for knowledge and accomplishment, but has neither genius nor taste. At the ball at Netherfield, she embarrasses Elizabeth by singing badly.

Thanks for classing up the thread with that literary reference, changed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

A brawl between Joseph Smith and William Smith during a high council meeting holding a trial in Kirtland, Ohio on October 29, 1835?

Yes, I'd say I was pretty certain of the facts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then you are wrong. It was a debate committee in William Smith home which Joseph Smith helped build. Anything was open to debate, however prior to Hyrum rising up to discuss the issue as to whether the debate committee itself were proper, William forbade him from debating such an issue. Joseph rose up and said that it should be allowed, William in turn said the equivalent of "not in his house" to which Joseph replied he also built that house, and so on.... a brawl ensued.

It wasn't a High Priests meeting as you have made it out to be.

Are you always this careful when you teach church history?

So I present to you that your understanding of history is flawed.

Page 300 Rough Stone Rolling

[consiglieri]

So I present to you that your understanding of history is flawed.

Thank you for corroborating the main point as to how Joseph Smith sometimes responded to criticism.

William and Joseph also got into a tussle at the high council mentioned above (or almost did).

They frequently fought.

One account has it that Joseph was still suffering from blows inflicted in a fight with William when he was martyred.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

I think I have just illustrated the importance of Elder Scott's talk.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

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.

[...]

I listened to his talk last night, and I don't know if someone pointed this out, but he says the other class was in "my ward." So, it's pretty much just one guy who's feeling pretty bad, and at least one ward of individuals who knows who it was that was thrown under the bus as an object lesson.

[Jeff K.]

Thank you for corroborating the main point as to how Joseph Smith sometimes responded to criticism.

William and Joseph also got into a tussle at the high council mentioned above (or almost did).

They frequently fought.

One account has it that Joseph was still suffering from blows inflicted in a fight with William when he was martyred.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Nice attempt at recovery but you were wrong, and yet you spoke of it as fact. The account of Joseph suffering from blows inflimcted in a fight by William is from that very same fight.

They are the same account.

This is one reason there is a need to stick to the manual. Here you are telling what you presume to be fact, and when corrected you retreated to "well my main point is", and yet you were wrong in both your history and the manner in which you presented it. And when you attempted to produce additional information, it also was inaccurate (same brawl if you will).

Teaching requires accuracy, history is sometimes inaccurate and imprecise, or in the least, we often present or own perception. And that perception can be to make it exciting. You produced an idea that the fight between Joseph and William was a High Priests meeting, implying that Joseph would openly brawl in church.

In fact the fight took place outside of church and responsibilities and also as a fact took place with no doctrine involved.

Your characterization in a way undermined Joseph the prophet to a brawler in High Priests, when in fact that is not the case.

A teacher should know better.

[consiglieri]

Nice attempt at recovery but you were wrong, and yet you spoke of it as fact. The account of Joseph suffering from blows inflimcted in a fight by William is from that very same fight.

They are the same account.

This is one reason there is a need to stick to the manual. Here you are telling what you presume to be fact, and when corrected you retreated to "well my main point is", and yet you were wrong in both your history and the manner in which you presented it. And when you attempted to produce additional information, it also was inaccurate (same brawl if you will).

Teaching requires accuracy, history is sometimes inaccurate and imprecise, or in the least, we often present or own perception. And that perception can be to make it exciting. You produced an idea that the fight between Joseph and William was a High Priests meeting, implying that Joseph would openly brawl in church.

In fact the fight took place outside of church and responsibilities and also as a fact took place with no doctrine involved.

Your characterization in a way undermined Joseph the prophet to a brawler in High Priests, when in fact that is not the case.

A teacher should know better.

Okay. I was wrong. I confused the actual brawl Joseph Smith engaged in with his brother, William, with an almost brawl Joseph Smith engaged in with his brother, William.

It's a good thing I prepare well in advance of class to try to avoid this kind of glaring error.

I do not feel it undermined Joseph, though.

I am glad for his imperfections, and, if you will, his sheer frontier American physicality.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I listened to his talk last night, and I don't know if someone pointed this out, but he says the other class was in "my ward." So, it's pretty much just one guy who's feeling pretty bad, and at least one ward of individuals who knows who it was that was thrown under the bus as an object lesson.

Thank you for checking that out, Herr Doktor.

I thought I had remembered Elder Scott saying that, but what with my well known penchant for confusing the facts, together with my wanting to give Elder Scott the benefit of the doubt and not think he would be guilty of so ungracious a public comment toward a specific individual, I let it slide and didn't bring it up.

I think the fact Elder Scott pinpointed the individual makes his comment completely inappropriate for General Conference.

Does anybody disagree?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Deborah]

So, it's pretty much just one guy who's feeling pretty bad, and at least one ward of individuals who knows who it was that was thrown under the bus as an object lesson.

Except to say who knows how many wards he's been in through his life. It could have been years ago. I don't think he'd make a reference to someone in his current ward.

[Jeff K.]

Okay. I was wrong. I confused the actual brawl Joseph Smith engaged in with his brother, William, with an almost brawl Joseph Smith engaged in with his brother, William.

It's a good thing I prepare well in advance of class to try to avoid this kind of glaring error.

I do not feel it undermined Joseph, though.

I am glad for his imperfections, and, if you will, his sheer frontier American physicality.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And there we see the problem. You don't feel you undermined the prophet by labeling a brawler, by erroneously labeling a brawler within church. You think its fine, when in fact it can be taken in many different ways.

Imagine someone struggling with their testimony and feeling justified as dismissing the prophet because he brawled at church, the Lord's house even. Teachers should not be stumbling blocks for those they teach.

A good teacher knows this. A bad teacher ignores the same.

Such casual errors illustrate why Elder Scott was inspired to make such a talk and why teachers should heed his words, and do wo without equivocation or attempt to diminish their application.

[Jeff K.]

I think the fact Elder Scott pinpointed the individual makes his comment completely inappropriate for General Conference.

Do you think your inaccuracy or penchant for making fiction fact regarding church history makes your comments completely inappropriate for Gospel Doctrine?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I think the fact Elder Scott pinpointed the individual makes his comment completely inappropriate for General Conference.

Does anybody disagree?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'm kind of torn. I watched it with the parents (they DVR'd it). Once he was done with that section of the talk, I (as only a snotty son can do) compared what he had just done to what BRM had done years ago.

Both parents didn't see any negativity in his comments. The way they understood it was that he preferred a given teaching style, but because he allowed himself to be open to the spirit, he was able to receive revelation while in a class whose teaching style wasn't what he preferred.

They didn't really see it as a condemnation of that teaching style, but a reminder that it is up to us to get something out of a class. The teacher (with a given teaching style) isn't always called for the benefit of everyone, but sometimes just the benefit of one (who needs it most). If you aren't that one, then it's up to you to swallow your pride and get something out of the lesson even though it isn't your particular cup of tea.

They then went on to share how much they enjoyed their ward when they lived in Cedar City (several professors, a retired superintendent, etc.). Every teacher brough their own expertise (one of my dad's favorites was an etymologist who would spend a lot of class time explaining where different words came from, and how we often misuse and misinterpret them), and each one taught differently with different focuses.

So, maybe my parents (who, must be groovy to have created me) are right and the example wasn't a derogatory comment about a given teaching style, but was instead a derogatory comment to those who condemn individuals who are called of G-d to teach, all because they don't like a given teaching style (such as if a teacher who has been called of G-d deviates from the manual from time to time). Basically that he was trying to say that the teaching style doesn't matter as much as our willingness to receive revelation does.

Or, maybe he just threw a guy under the bus in front of a couple million people. My spiritual radar is broken though, so... dunno.

[consiglieri]

Do you think your inaccuracy or penchant for making fiction fact regarding church history makes your comments completely inappropriate for Gospel Doctrine?

Nice dodge.

Please answer the question.

Do you think Elder Scott's comment was appropriate?

If so, why?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri