Bishop Asked Me To Help Teach 5Th Sunday Lessons On The Essays

[ALarson]

Al, Welcome to the wonderful world of leadership. The goal is to balance the members different levels of understanding, and never ever hurt someone's testimony.

The way you do that, is to stick to the written word and let it speak for itself, regardless of the ambiguity.

It's a great responsibility.

Thanks, and I agree.

 

If you read my OP, you'll see that I stated this:

 

One thing I did tell the Bishop is that there is more on each topic, more in-depth information that is not included in the essays (at least most of them), but I feel strongly he should stick to only the information that's given by the leaders in the essays. There are footnotes given where members can go home and do more studying on their own.

 

 

This is probably part of the reason the Bishop and SP trust me to help teach the discussions as this is how I've always conducted myself in classes at church.  I could speak up many times with my own opinions or with details I know, but I don't do that.  If someone outright asks me questions about a topic though, I do answer honestly about what I believe.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, and I agree.

 

If you read my OP, you'll see that I stated this:

 

 

This is probably part of the reason the Bishop and SP trust me to help teach the discussions as this is how I've always conducted myself in classes at church.  I could speak up many times with my own opinions or with details I know, but I don't do that.  If someone outright asks me questions about a topic though, I do answer honestly about what I believe.

That's the perfect solution.

[cinepro]

Alarson, is there any way to get the members to read the essays before your lesson? That would probably make for a more interesting discussion!

I think the problem will be that members will hear about the essays and make assumptions that a) They already know everything that's in them (only the weak-of-faith would ever be upset by such things) and b) if there are any problems, the essays totally resolve them. Actually reading the essays would disabuse them of those notions.

Edited May 6, 2015 by cinepro

[ALarson]

Alarson, is there any way to get the members to read the essays before your lesson? That would probably make for a more interesting discussion!

I think the problem will be that members will hear about the essays and make assumptions that a) They already know everything that's in them (only the weak-of-faith would ever be upset by such things) and b) if there are any problems, the essays totally resolve them. Actually reading the essays would disabuse them of those notions.

I like that idea!  I'll suggest it to the Bishop tonight and see what he thinks.  At least the members would have a "heads up" regarding what is going to be discussed and will come with some thoughts or questions.  I think we'd have to print a copy of the essay and pass out a copy to each adult the week before as I doubt that many would look them up online (but maybe?).

 

Anyway, great suggestion.  Thanks.

[ALarson]

I hope it goes well.

Thanks, calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I understand what you're asking, but you'd need to ask my Bishop (and my Stake President who approved my name to help teach the discussions on the essays) the reasons why they asked me to help.  I tend to believe it's because there are many in our ward and stake who feel as I do and who have come to them with doubts and questions.  I've worked through them, returned to full activity and temple attendance.  I hold a leadership calling in our ward and I have a good rapport with the members in our ward.  

 

But again, you'd have to ask my Bishop and SP the questions you asked above, for their exact reasons.

 

(And your use of "shaken faith syndrome" gave me a good laugh.  What a phrase ) 

 

On a previous thread, I believe I remember you saying you no longer believe the LDS Church is "literally true" (perhaps my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something close to that). Speaking for myself, if I were ever to arrive at the point where I no longer believed the Church was "literally true," then I think others would be perfectly justified in saying my faith in the Restored Church and Gospel had been shaken, if not altogether destroyed. For example, if at one time I had a testimony that the Father and the Son literally appeared to Joseph Smith but then one day came to no longer believe the First Vision was literally true, then what else could one rightly say than that my testimony of the reality of the first vision had been shaken or destroyed?

 

You'll have to forgive me because the recent phenomenon of the "unbelieving member in good standing" is a concept that's new to me and I haven't been able to wrap my mind around it as yet. In all sincerity, perhaps you could help me to understand something that for now seems to be nothing less than a textbook example of an oxymoron?  

 

Please do me a favor and correct any misunderstandings and faulty recollections I might have.

 

 READ THE BOARD RULES and stop conducting personal worthiness interviews. You are out of the thread.

[carbon dioxide]

If I where you I would find a way to merge the issue of the priesthood ban with polygamy and sprinkle it with the Adam-God theory.  Forget about opening a can of worms and just offer a buffet of worms.

Edited May 7, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Tacenda]

On a previous thread, I believe I remember you saying you no longer believe the LDS Church is "literally true" (perhaps my memory is faulty, but I'm pretty sure I remember you saying something close to that). Speaking for myself, if I were ever to arrive at the point where I no longer believed the Church was "literally true," then I think others would be perfectly justified in saying my faith in the Restored Church and Gospel had been shaken, if not altogether destroyed. For example, if at one time I had a testimony that the Father and the Son literally appeared to Joseph Smith but then one day came to no longer believe the First Vision was literally true, then what else could one rightly say than that my testimony of the reality of the first vision had been shaken or destroyed?

You'll have to forgive me because the recent phenomenon of the "unbelieving member in good standing" is a concept that's new to me and I haven't been able to wrap my mind around it as yet. In all sincerity, perhaps you could help me to understand something that for now seems to be nothing less than a textbook example of an oxymoron?

Please do me a favor and correct any misunderstandings and faulty recollections I might have.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ALarson is a lifelong LDS possibly or if not, has a wife/family that literally believe. And has been in the LDS culture long enough that it's where he is happiest. I think you'd be very surprised to find out he is one of thousands that are like this. It's called a tribe, or a culture.

[rodheadlee]

I'm going to ask a really stupid question. What exact essay are you all talking about? I got about a dozen articles/essays on the priesthood ban when I put that in the search engine.

[teddyaware]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ALarson is a lifelong LDS possibly or if not, has a wife/family that literally believe. And has been in the LDS culture long enough that it's where he is happiest. I think you'd be very surprised to find out he is one of thousands that are like this. It's called a tribe, or a culture.

 

I believe this brother is a very active member of the Church who holds a leadership position, attends the temple, and believes the Church is true in his own way. 

[Calm]

I'm going to ask a really stupid question. What exact essay are you all talking about? I got about a dozen articles/essays on the priesthood ban when I put that in the search engine.

Here is the specific one being discussed:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Other essays to be taught are also listed on the main page of the Gospel Topic page.

[ALarson]

I believe this brother is a very active member of the Church who holds a leadership position, attends the temple, and believes the Church is true in his own way. 

Yes, that's correct.  But what Tacenda stated also describes some of my situation.  And, I do have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

Also, I didn't mean to poke fun at you for using "the shaken faith syndrome" phrase, but it's always seemed like such an odd thing to accuse members of "suffering" with, like it's a disease or something.  I'd imagine the man who coined it meant well though.

[ALarson]

I'm going to ask a really stupid question. What exact essay are you all talking about? I got about a dozen articles/essays on the priesthood ban when I put that in the search engine.

Here's a good website where all the essays are (and with links to lds.org too).

http://mormonessays.com/

 

We'll be discussing the "Race and the Priesthood" essay in a few weeks.

[Tacenda]

Yes, that's correct.  But what Tacenda stated also describes some of my situation.  And, I do have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

Also, I didn't mean to poke fun at you for using "the shaken faith syndrome" phrase, but it's always seemed like such an odd thing to accuse members of "suffering" with, like it's a disease or something.  I'd imagine the man who coined it meant well though.

ALarson, hope you didn't mind my describing you like that.  I love that you have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It's easy to lose that in a faith crisis especially in the LDS church, kudos to you for avoiding that.  But that's not to mean I fault someone that is Agnostic/Atheist either, we're all a human family that should accept our differences in love.    

 

Also, I believe Michael R. Ash might have made the phrase popular.  http://www.shakenfaithsyndrome.com/

[ALarson]

ALarson, hope you didn't mind my describing you like that.  I love that you have a strong testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It's easy to lose that in a faith crisis especially in the LDS church, kudos to you for avoiding that.  But that's not to mean I fault someone that is Agnostic/Atheist either, we're all a human family that should accept our differences in love.    

 

Also, I believe Michael R. Ash might have made the phrase popular.  http://www.shakenfaithsyndrome.com/

Thanks, Tacenda.  I get what you're saying about those who leave the church and end up Agnostic or Atheist.  From what I've seen, that's actually pretty common.  

 

I am familiar with Ash's book and I assume it's helped some.  Thanks again!

[hope_for_things]

I've recently started working through these lessons with my wife (she still quite orthodox).  There are ten lessons and you go through the gospel topics essays as part of the study as well as reading Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People book and watching some video as well.  This has gone extremely well so far.  I think part of the challenge with introducing people to the complexity of Mormon history is knowing where to start and what to cover.  I would like to recommend this as a nice tool for contextualizing history in a friendly and honesty way.  

 

http://mormonismincontext.com/

[HappyJackWagon]

Hope, thanks for sharing that resource

[Antoni]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say ALarson is a lifelong LDS possibly or if not, has a wife/family that literally believe. And has been in the LDS culture long enough that it's where he is happiest. I think you'd be very surprised to find out he is one of thousands that are like this. It's called a tribe, or a culture.

 

Therein lies the issue - we're a church, a community of faith and of Christs disciples. We're not a social group or tribe. I wish ALarson all the best with the teaching assignment, but I generally fear for this "culture" type of talk. The church is a worldwide community of faith. The erosion and idea of it being cultural is for those of us outside of Utah a great worry. If these essay discussion lead to lots of people becoming more "cultural mormons" rather than people of faith they have not helped. If you want to have the "cosy" social/cultural side of the church but not the discipleship, sacrifice and faith then you're in the wrong "tribe".

 

I also believe discussing these issues is sensible (I've read most anti stuff and have delved deeply into church history myself before joining) and that you can address them and still have strong testimony to the Truth of the Gospel, Restoration, BoM and Joseph Smith. Perhaps ALarson you can find someone who is well versed in these areas and still believes fully who can teach with you?

 

Will be praying for your preparation and the hearts and minds you teach. For you too that perhaps you discover some new truths too.

 

Light, Love and Peace

 

Antoni

[ALarson]

I've recently started working through these lessons with my wife (she still quite orthodox).  There are ten lessons and you go through the gospel topics essays as part of the study as well as reading Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People book and watching some video as well.  This has gone extremely well so far.  I think part of the challenge with introducing people to the complexity of Mormon history is knowing where to start and what to cover.  I would like to recommend this as a nice tool for contextualizing history in a friendly and honesty way.  

 

http://mormonismincontext.com/

Wow, thanks.  This looks like a great resource (I've only started to read the material there, but I like how it's laid out so far).  

 

I met with the Bishop last night (along with a few other leaders who will be involved with planning the discussions) and I wish I'd had this link then.  I'll email it to all of them as we're trying to gather resources.

[ALarson]

Will be praying for your preparation and the hearts and minds you teach. 

Thanks Antoni, I am doing this as well and I appreciate you doing that.

 

I'm curious about this statement of yours:

The church is a worldwide community of faith. The erosion and idea of it being cultural is for those of us outside of Utah a great worry.

Why do you separate the church members into those in Utah and those outside of Utah?

[Antoni]

My comment about praying is sincere ALarson and thanks for your thanks!

 

My comment re: Utah is that from my perspective the largest (perhaps most vocal) proponents of the "cultural mormon" view tend to be those that have grown up in church (possibly for generations) and yet are extremely ignorant on church history etc. And most of this ilk seem to be from Utah.I see this attitude also effecting many US members too. Whilst they want their mormon "culture" they also want their modern liberal USA culture (something that is at variance with many Church members outside US). I don't see this clinging to "cultural/social mormonism" outside US (correct me if I'm wrong). I can see why this view persists in somewhere like Utah especially due to its history and society of that state.

 

I'm probably wrong with singling out Utah perhaps,  a great (maybe even the majority of those in Church?) many fabulous, dedicated and loyal Saints are there and have grown up and continue to live and serve faithfully. (2 such are serving in my ward as missionaries) .  It just seems to me "looking in from outside" that the concept of "cultural mormonism" it is particularly acute in Utah.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, Tacenda.  I get what you're saying about those who leave the church and end up Agnostic or Atheist.  From what I've seen, that's actually pretty common.  

 

I am familiar with Ash's book and I assume it's helped some.  Thanks again!

The reason that it happens is that we have a very different view of the nature of God, and most who are into descriptions of God have already rejected the classic "Christian" trinity stuff about Being and Substance and three persons in one.

So if they reject our conception of God as well, there is not much in Western culture left but atheism.

There is a famous BYU philosophy professor who argues that indeed we ARE "A-Theos" in the sense that "Theos" is a Greek term describing a god we reject.

So in that sense we are already "a-theos" to many in the world since Christianity accepts the vague "theos" of Platonism.

So when we are accused of worshiping "another God" we should just say "Yes, that's right, thank you very much".

[mfbukowski]

My comment about praying is sincere ALarson and thanks for your thanks!

 

My comment re: Utah is that from my perspective the largest (perhaps most vocal) proponents of the "cultural mormon" view tend to be those that have grown up in church (possibly for generations) and yet are extremely ignorant on church history etc. And most of this ilk seem to be from Utah.I see this attitude also effecting many US members too. Whilst they want their mormon "culture" they also want their modern liberal USA culture (something that is at variance with many Church members outside US). I don't see this clinging to "cultural/social mormonism" outside US (correct me if I'm wrong). I can see why this view persists in somewhere like Utah especially due to its history and society of that state.

 

I'm probably wrong with singling out Utah perhaps,  a great (maybe even the majority of those in Church?) many fabulous, dedicated and loyal Saints are there and have grown up and continue to live and serve faithfully. (2 such are serving in my ward as missionaries) .  It just seems to me "looking in from outside" that the concept of "cultural mormonism" it is particularly acute in Utah.

You are not wrong at all. The only place cultural Mormons exist is in Utah. It stands to reason. There is nowhere else anyone would care that you are a "fifth generation Mormon" and actually care if you were active or not.

My ancestors from Poland probably have all been Catholic for a thousand years. Now I am Mormon.

Maybe if I lived in the same village my ancestors came from in Poland, someone would care.

Here? Not exactly!

You cannot be a "cultural Mormon" where there IS NO "Mormon culture". A culture with one member is not a "culture"!

[ALarson]

You are not wrong at all. The only place cultural Mormons exist is in Utah. It stands to reason. There is nowhere else anyone would care that you are a "fifth generation Mormon" and actually care if you were active or not.

I think that Antoni may have a different meaning in mind when he mentioned "cultural Mormons", but he'll have to respond to clarify.

 

He stated above:

"The erosion and idea of it being cultural is for those of us outside of Utah a great worry. If these essay discussion lead to lots of people becoming more "cultural mormons" rather than people of faith they have not helped.  If you want to have the "cosy" social/cultural side of the church but not the discipleship, sacrifice and faith then you're in the wrong "tribe".

 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You are not wrong at all. The only place cultural Mormons exist is in Utah. It stands to reason. There is nowhere else anyone would care that you are a "fifth generation Mormon" and actually care if you were active or not.

You cannot be a "cultural Mormon" where there IS NO "Mormon culture". A culture with one member is not a "culture"!

 

Of course Mormon culture exists outside of Utah. MF, unless you are joking I just can't understand your position here. There are 5th generation Mormons in many locations. Wherever you have a community of Mormons there will be a Mormon culture. Some if it will come by transplant from previous Utah Mormons, and some will come naturally via church leadership. In any case, there is strong traditional Mormon culture where I live and I'm nowhere near Utah. When I visit Utah I see some minor cultural differences but the heart of Mormon culture lives on strong outside of Utah.