Sunday School

[stemelbow]

Sunday school isn't the funnest.  Admit it.  But I'm supposed to go to all my classes so I go.  I normally just sit quietly and try to get something out of the lesson and subsequent discussion even if the lessons are pretty boring and basic and the discussion is not much more than spitting out repeated platitudes.  Sorry for the negativity but I honestly am not sure how else to describe it.  So last week we had lesson 32.  https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-32-they-did-obey-every-word-of-command-with-exactness?lang=eng

Said the instructor starting out (just as the lesson tells him to do):  we must apply this to our lives by seeing ourselves in a battle today.  Today's battle is not the wars they waged in BoM times but are spiritual battles. 

This mindset bothers me.  I cant' stand the notion of going out each day and engaging in battle--nothing in my day to day activities is anything close to battling.  I fear this teaching has given us members, generally speaking, a poor view and attitude as we continue in the world.  Be in the world but not of the world is the lame type of platitudes I don't care for.  So I kept trying hard to figure out how to apply the lesson to our lives.  I thought, "well if we are doing battle today and it's a spiritual battle, shall some of us, at least, take the example of the original followers of Ammon and lay down our lives, spiritual lives if you will, because we detest the effects of this battle so much?  Shall we do so out of compassion for others?  if there is nobility in not fighting so much that it's good that some of us lay down our lives so we don't participate in the spilling of blood, then is there a parallel for us in our day?  Shall we too lay down in this spiritual battle so others too take compassion and stop the bloodshed?"  needless to say, this question was met with a "uhhhh...huh?  Well, no we can't just concede defeat." 

"Alright."  I shrugged, not really seeing a good way to apply the messages other than to say fighting our wars today feels pretty pointless.  Maybe radical Islamists will find compassion if we just let them kill us.  I mean they are people and have hearts and junk

Then he tried to wrap up the lesson, as the manual emphasized (it is the title of the lesson after all) with the notion that we must obey with exactness.  That God doesn't expect anything from us but for us to do whatever He tells us.  meh...I thought.  Eve somehow found beauty in disobeying.  This lesson also spoke of two different competing ways of approaching things--one was you should fight and defend what is yours.  There is good in that.  The other is there is good in laying down your life in passivity in compassion for others.  is one more noble than the other?  The passivists, it was said, continued their passivitiy because they didn't dare go back on their promise to God, even if they really wanted to fight again.  But their kids proved to be better warriors than any one else around, and it is suggested they are so good because God blessed them to be so good at it.  So says I, "it's not so much that we obey with exactness as it is that each of us figure out what is best for us and obey that which we tell God we're going to do, at least until we learn that which we tell God is not the best course of action.  It's not obeying God with exactness so much as for us to find ourselves, in some sense, and be true to what we hold as valuable".    My wife earlier chimed in wondering if it's really sticking to their values if they sent their kids off to kill people, so it seemed to fit. 

"that sounds too much like, we do what we want."  He replies with some amount of annoyance, as it seems I was taking the lesson off script. 

"Alright" I shrugged again.  The lecturing continued and it ended with a testimony sharing. 

I wish our lesson was themed more about us learning from life, figuring out what works best for us and doing that which seems most applicable, most helpful to ourselves and others. 

Oh well...lamenting I guess.  Thoughts on this are most certainly welcome. 

[thesometimesaint]

So you sit back and say nothing in class to further the conversation , but come here to rant that Sunday School isn't about doing your own thing.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

"Alright."  I shrugged, not really seeing a good way to apply the messages other than to say fighting our wars today feels pretty pointless.  Maybe radical Islamists will find compassion if we just let them kill us.  I mean they are people and have hearts and junk

When someone talks about fighting spiritual battles, i think about fighting satan and his influence on me and my family.  I don't think of actual physical fighting against other people.  That would be fighting physical battles in my view.

Quote

Then he tried to wrap up the lesson, as the manual emphasized (it is the title of the lesson after all) with the notion that we must obey with exactness.  That God doesn't expect anything from us but for us to do whatever He tells us.  meh...I thought.  Eve somehow found beauty in disobeying.  This lesson also spoke of two different competing ways of approaching things--one was you should fight and defend what is yours.  There is good in that.  The other is there is good in laying down your life in passivity in compassion for others.  is one more noble than the other?  The passivists, it was said, continued their passivitiy because they didn't dare go back on their promise to God, even if they really wanted to fight again.  But their kids proved to be better warriors than any one else around, and it is suggested they are so good because God blessed them to be so good at it.  So says I, "it's not so much that we obey with exactness as it is that each of us figure out what is best for us and obey that which we tell God we're going to do, at least until we learn that which we tell God is not the best course of action.  It's not obeying God with exactness so much as for us to find ourselves, in some sense, and be true to what we hold as valuable".    My wife earlier chimed in wondering if it's really sticking to their values if they sent their kids off to kill people, so it seemed to fit. 

We had this lesson a couple of weeks ago.  Our teacher played a video clip from Elder Scott (from a conference address) where he says that the reason why it was so dangerous for the anti-nephi-lehi's to contemplate taking up their weapons again was because they were like addicts who had once been addicted to bloodshed and violence and that their souls might have been at stake should they do something that would put them back into that addiction again because it would be so easy to fall back into it (like an alcoholic who has a really good selfless reason to take a drink but that, regardless of the good reason, will still likely lead to heartache and despair).

The sons did not have that disposition though-they had never been blood thirsty and violent-so they could find to protect their families without damaging their own souls.

It was actually a huge lightbulb moment for me when we watched the clip because i realized how incredibly merciful God is and that the story isn't about punishing someone for breaking a covenant but it's about protecting someone from the horrible personal spiritual consequences that the covenant was meant to protect them from.

I'll see if i can find the conference address and add a link here if i can.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So you sit back and say nothing in class to further the conversation , but come here to rant that Sunday School isn't about doing your own thing.

huh?  I didn't sit back and say nothing.  I quoted, or as close as I could recite, the questions I asked.  Sure, though, I'll come here to talk about that which is not welcome in Church in some cases. 

No comment on what was said in the OP? 

[Doctrine 612]

I love Sunday school, mostly because I have served as a gospel doctrine teacher many times.

It could be boring if you have a bad teacher but that is not as bad as going to Sunday school unprepared, there's nothing worst then a student or teacher that is unprepared to learn and teach.

Last Sunday I was asked to teach which was lesson 32 and it was great, we talked about the armor of God, grace and obediance, and faith in God to overcome our life battles.

example: the armor is put on us but only Faith, salvation, and the word of God we must take for ourselves through prayer and humility.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When someone talks about fighting spiritual battles, i think about fighting satan and his influence on me and my family.  I don't think of actual physical fighting against other people.  That would be fighting physical battles in my view.

I get the impression that many see other people as satan's tools of some sort.  That is when we list that which is part of the battle we fight against, is that which is advocated for by other people.  I think, and I'm not non-LDS who interact with LDS, but my impression is many who interact with LDS get the impression that LDS view themselves as a lone crew fighting against everyone else, in some spiritual battle way.  I say, we should see it as we're all in this together, a lot more. 

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We had this lesson a couple of weeks ago.  Our teacher played a video clip from Elder Scott (from a conference address) where he says that the reason why it was so dangerous for the anti-nephi-lehi's to contemplate taking up their weapons again was because they were like addicts who had once been addicted to bloodshed and violence and that their souls might have been at stake should they do something that would put them back into that addiction again because it would be so easy to fall back into it (like an alcoholic who has a really good selfless reason to take a drink but that, regardless of the good reason, will still likely lead to heartache and despair).

So how does that apply to us in waging our spiritual battles?  If we put up a fight against Satan's forces are there some of us who fall victim to our addictions and so we should not do such battles? 

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The sons did not have that disposition though-they had never been blood thirsty and violent-so they could find to protect their families without damaging their own souls.

It's hard to understand the descriptor of blood thirsty when it comes to humans.  If the sons were good at battling others, I suppose they are good at it without being bloodthirsty.  But yet other's who fight battles are bloodthirsty?  Since they were so good at fighting even so much that when outnumbered none of them died seems to indicate they did have a disposition to battle and fight. 

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was actually a huge lightbulb moment for me when we watched the clip because i realized how incredibly merciful God is and that the story isn't about punishing someone for breaking a covenant but it's about protecting someone from the horrible personal spiritual consequences that the covenant was meant to protect them from.

I'll see if i can find the conference address and add a link here if i can.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  If they fought previously because they were blood thirsty, then if they fought when they wanted to defend themselves and protect others, are we assuming they were going to turn bad again?  The story doesn't say anything about protecting them from the horrible consequences of fighting, but about protecting them from the eternal punishment that would have come from changing their minds.  Again, back to Eve, she didn't lose her salvation because she ate of the fruit.  We aren't necessarily going to lose our salvation if we say a swear word, or even punch someone in the nose, even if we covenant at some point not to say bad words any more, or not to get upset with someone anymore.  You may say those aren't as serious as killing.  Surely not.  SO is it about breaking a covenant or about breaking a covenant when it comes to something serious like fighting in wars?  Seriously, how do we apply this in our lives? 

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  I didn't sit back and say nothing.  I quoted, or as close as I could recite, the questions I asked.  Sure, though, I'll come here to talk about that which is not welcome in Church in some cases. 

No comment on what was said in the OP? 

Sorry if I misunderstood. But here is what I read " I normally just sit quietly". Your rant was about not talking about " figuring out what works best for us and doing that which seems most applicable, most helpful to ourselves and others'.  IOW doing your own thing. 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

I love Sunday school, mostly because I have served as a gospel doctrine teacher many times.

It could be boring if you have a bad teacher but that is not as bad as going to Sunday school unprepared, there's nothing worst then a student or teacher that is unprepared to learn and teach.

Last Sunday I was asked to teach which was lesson 32 and it was great, we talked about the armor of God, grace and obediance, and faith in God to overcome our life battles.

example: the armor is put on us but only Faith, salvation, and the word of God we must take for ourselves through prayer and humility.

Fair enough.  It works for some, for sure. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sorry if I misunderstood. But here is what I read " I normally just sit quietly".

Class is big and there's not much room or time for everyone to talk. I realize my contributions, ro that which I'd see as my contributions, would mostly just upset people so I sit quietly, most of the time.  Who am I but just some dude among the many.  I realize my view is not well appreciated at Church so I try not to distract much, even if it inevitably happens (hey sometimes they call on me without solicitation and sometimes, like this past SS class I just can't help myself so I raise my hand). 

Quote

Your rant was about not talking about " figuring out what works best for us and doing that which seems most applicable, most helpful to ourselves and others'.  IOW doing your own thing. 

I scratch my head wondering how people don't do their own thing.  no one obeys perfectly.  No one follows with perfection.  We all hear and view the world, develop our preferences and priorities.  But, in Church we don't talk about it that way--we often just say, "well we must obey with exactness".  Obey what?  There are conflicting commandments...just ask Eve. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by stemelbow

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Class is big and there's not much room or time for everyone to talk. I realize my contributions, ro that which I'd see as my contributions, would mostly just upset people so I sit quietly, most of the time.  Who am I but just some dude among the many.  I realize my view is not well appreciated at Church so I try not to distract much, even if it inevitably happens (hey sometimes they call on me without solicitation and sometimes, like this past SS class I just can't help myself so I raise my hand). 

I scratch my head wondering how people don't do their own thing.  no one obeys perfectly.  No one follows with perfection.  We all hear and view the world, develop our preferences and priorities.  But, in Church we don't talk about it that way--we often just say, "well we must obey with exactness".  Obey what?  There are conflicting commandments...just ask Eve. 

I've always had a big mouth. If I have something to say I have no problem saying it. 

Eve followed Satan in that one instance. Lucifer was doing what was done on other worlds, but claimed credit for himself.

Edited September 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

I've always had a big mouth. If I have something to say I have no problem saying it. 

Eve foll.owed Satan in that instance. Lucifer was doing what was done on other worlds, but claimed credit for himself.

The lesson from Eve's story is many.  One of which is, sometimes its good for us to disobey.  Obeying with exactness is not only impossible, but not what God wants. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I get the impression that many see other people as satan's tools of some sort.  That is when we list that which is part of the battle we fight against, is that which is advocated for by other people.  I think, and I'm not non-LDS who interact with LDS, but my impression is many who interact with LDS get the impression that LDS view themselves as a lone crew fighting against everyone else, in some spiritual battle way.  I say, we should see it as we're all in this together, a lot more. 

I agree.  I'm sure there are LDS out there who feel just as you've described, but i don't know any personally who view LDS as the lone crew fighting against evil.  It would have been interesting if you could have asked the teacher exactly what he meant by fighting spiritual battles.  You could be assuming that he meant something he didn't actually mean.

Quote

So how does that apply to us in waging our spiritual battles?  If we put up a fight against Satan's forces are there some of us who fall victim to our addictions and so we should not do such battles? 

The anti-nephi-lehi's fought the spiritual battle when they did not break their covenant and give it to the temptation to take up arms despite the real spiritual risks to themselves.  

Quote

It's hard to understand the descriptor of blood thirsty when it comes to humans.  If the sons were good at battling others, I suppose they are good at it without being bloodthirsty.  But yet other's who fight battles are bloodthirsty?  Since they were so good at fighting even so much that when outnumbered none of them died seems to indicate they did have a disposition to battle and fight.

I guess i don't understand what you are saying, because to me understanding what 'blood thirsty' means it's fairly basic.  It's people who delight or take pleasure in fighting and killing other people.  Blood-thirsty, per the definition is = eager to shed blood.

And no, i don't think that being protected by God thru obedience to their prophet leader and thru their absolute faith, means that the sons of Helaman were eager to kill or found pleasure in doing so.

Quote

I'm not sure I get what you're saying.  If they fought previously because they were blood thirsty, then if they fought when they wanted to defend themselves and protect others, are we assuming they were going to turn bad again?

Yes, that was what Elder Scott was suggesting.  

Quote

The story doesn't say anything about protecting them from the horrible consequences of fighting, but about protecting them from the eternal punishment that would have come from changing their minds.

 All the story says about it is- "And Helaman feared lest by so doing they should lose their souls;"  

If the people had once again become bloodthirsty-if they had once again given in to that addiction-it would have let to eternal consequences.  Not as a punishment, but as a consequence of becoming bloodthirsty again.  The story says nothing about it being a punishment, does it?  I think that we assume it means punishment for breaking the oath, but that's us reading stuff into the account that it doesn't actually say.

Quote

Again, back to Eve, she didn't lose her salvation because she ate of the fruit. 

She would have if she hadn't had faith in Christ and repented.  It was only thru the Atonement that she didn't lose her salvation.  

Quote

We aren't necessarily going to lose our salvation if we say a swear word, or even punch someone in the nose, even if we covenant at some point not to say bad words any more, or not to get upset with someone anymore. 

As long as we continue to have faith in Christ, repent of those things, and work to becoming more like Him, that's true.  If we do those things and have no desire to stop or to becoming a new creature in Christ and we don't work towards that end (with Christ's help) then yes those things could easily impact our salvation.

Quote

SO is it about breaking a covenant or about breaking a covenant when it comes to something serious like fighting in wars?  Seriously, how do we apply this in our lives? 

It's about keeping ourself safe from the personal consequences of bad choices.  Some consequences are more serious than others because of the different spiritual battles each of us face.  The consequence of drinking a beer for the average person and the consequence of drinking a beer for an addict is very different, even though the action is exactly the same.  

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The lesson from Eve's story is many.  One of which is, sometimes its good for us to disobey.  Obeying with exactness is not only impossible, but not what God wants. 

It is never good to disobey God. When we won't obey with exactness we need to repent.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I'm sure there are LDS out there who feel just as you've described, but i don't know any personally who view LDS as the lone crew fighting against evil.  It would have been interesting if you could have asked the teacher exactly what he meant by fighting spiritual battles.  You could be assuming that he meant something he didn't actually mean.

His description was basically that people support SSM and back in the day it was unheard of to support SSM.  It used to be that gay people were quiet and didn't make a stink in our society, now their voice is always included.  And he mentioned promiscuity and how women wear clothes that are tight or short skirts and shorts.  it's just normal now-a-days.  Stuff like that. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The anti-nephi-lehi's fought the spiritual battle when they did not break their covenant and give it to the temptation to take up arms despite the real spiritual risks to themselves.  

Well sure, but they probably would have given into the temptation of showing compassion for others if Helaman didn't convince them not to.   

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I guess i don't understand what you are saying, because to me understanding what 'blood thirsty' means it's fairly basic.  It's people who delight or take pleasure in fighting and killing other people.  Blood-thirsty, per the definition is = eager to shed blood.

Not easy for me.  No one is really that way, save for a few psychos.  But they are rare.  It's hard to comprehend there was a whole pile of people who delighted in killing. even if it might be argued that Germans in WWII might be a good possible example, it still feels like most probably weren't blood thirsty, even if a few were. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And no, i don't think that being protected by God thru obedience to their prophet leader and thru their absolute faith, means that the sons of Helaman were eager to kill or found pleasure in doing so.

Yes, that was what Elder Scott was suggesting.  

 All the story says about it is- "And Helaman feared lest by so doing they should lose their souls;"  

If the people had once again become bloodthirsty-if they had once again given in to that addiction-it would have let to eternal consequences.  Not as a punishment, but as a consequence of becoming bloodthirsty again.  The story says nothing about it being a punishment, does it?

I thought that's what losing their souls meant--they'd have eternal punishment. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 I think that we assume it means punishment for breaking the oath, but that's us reading stuff into the account that it doesn't actually say.

K.  I'm not sure what losing their souls is besides eternal punishment. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She would have if she hadn't had faith in Christ and repented.  It was only thru the Atonement that she didn't lose her salvation.  

She saw the beauty, worth, need of disobeying.  It was essential that she disobey for the sake of humanity.  Shall we too find ways to disobey for the sake of humanity? 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As long as we continue to have faith in Christ, repent of those things, and work to becoming more like Him, that's true.  If we do those things and have no desire to stop or to becoming a new creature in Christ and we don't work towards that end (with Christ's help) then yes those things could easily impact our salvation.

or so we're told.  But we don't really know that which effects another's salvation when it comes down to it. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's about keeping ourself safe from the personal consequences of bad choices.  Some consequences are more serious than others because of the different spiritual battles each of us face.  The consequence of drinking a beer for the average person and the consequence of drinking a beer for an addict is very different, even though the action is exactly the same.  

Ok, so obeying in exactness is possible? 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is never good to disobey God.

'cept it was good when Eve did so.  Are we not to take that seriously? 

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

When we won't obey with exactness we need to repent.

Which is all the time for all of us.  Thus, obeying with exactness is not going to happen and never has. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sunday school isn't the funnest.  Admit it.  But I'm supposed to go to all my classes so I go.  I normally just sit quietly and try to get something out of the lesson and subsequent discussion even if the lessons are pretty boring and basic and the discussion is not much more than spitting out repeated platitudes.  Sorry for the negativity but I honestly am not sure how else to describe it.  So last week we had lesson 32.  https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-32-they-did-obey-every-word-of-command-with-exactness?lang=eng

Said the instructor starting out (just as the lesson tells him to do):  we must apply this to our lives by seeing ourselves in a battle today.  Today's battle is not the wars they waged in BoM times but are spiritual battles. 

This mindset bothers me.  I cant' stand the notion of going out each day and engaging in battle--nothing in my day to day activities is anything close to battling.  I fear this teaching has given us members, generally speaking, a poor view and attitude as we continue in the world.  Be in the world but not of the world is the lame type of platitudes I don't care for.  So I kept trying hard to figure out how to apply the lesson to our lives.  I thought, "well if we are doing battle today and it's a spiritual battle, shall some of us, at least, take the example of the original followers of Ammon and lay down our lives, spiritual lives if you will, because we detest the effects of this battle so much?  Shall we do so out of compassion for others?  if there is nobility in not fighting so much that it's good that some of us lay down our lives so we don't participate in the spilling of blood, then is there a parallel for us in our day?  Shall we too lay down in this spiritual battle so others too take compassion and stop the bloodshed?"  needless to say, this question was met with a "uhhhh...huh?  Well, no we can't just concede defeat." 

"Alright."  I shrugged, not really seeing a good way to apply the messages other than to say fighting our wars today feels pretty pointless.  Maybe radical Islamists will find compassion if we just let them kill us.  I mean they are people and have hearts and junk

Then he tried to wrap up the lesson, as the manual emphasized (it is the title of the lesson after all) with the notion that we must obey with exactness.  That God doesn't expect anything from us but for us to do whatever He tells us.  meh...I thought.  Eve somehow found beauty in disobeying.  This lesson also spoke of two different competing ways of approaching things--one was you should fight and defend what is yours.  There is good in that.  The other is there is good in laying down your life in passivity in compassion for others.  is one more noble than the other?  The passivists, it was said, continued their passivitiy because they didn't dare go back on their promise to God, even if they really wanted to fight again.  But their kids proved to be better warriors than any one else around, and it is suggested they are so good because God blessed them to be so good at it.  So says I, "it's not so much that we obey with exactness as it is that each of us figure out what is best for us and obey that which we tell God we're going to do, at least until we learn that which we tell God is not the best course of action.  It's not obeying God with exactness so much as for us to find ourselves, in some sense, and be true to what we hold as valuable".    My wife earlier chimed in wondering if it's really sticking to their values if they sent their kids off to kill people, so it seemed to fit. 

"that sounds too much like, we do what we want."  He replies with some amount of annoyance, as it seems I was taking the lesson off script. 

"Alright" I shrugged again.  The lecturing continued and it ended with a testimony sharing. 

I wish our lesson was themed more about us learning from life, figuring out what works best for us and doing that which seems most applicable, most helpful to ourselves and others. 

Oh well...lamenting I guess.  Thoughts on this are most certainly welcome. 

For me the lesson was about my battle within myself.  I believe that temptations are real and the ability to choose the right, to choose holiness and righteousness over everything else is real.  The battle is between my desires to either follow Christ or to satisfy my ego, my passions, my wants.  

There are certainly times within church meetings where I have trouble finding lessons interesting or that captivate my interest.  I try to acknowledge that the teacher is doing their best - I may disagree with their interpretation or teaching methods - but I respect them for their efforts.  The disinterest is my problem rather than being the teacher's problem.  

 

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

'cept it was good when Eve did so.  Are we not to take that seriously? 

Which is all the time for all of us.  Thus, obeying with exactness is not going to happen and never has. 

It wasn't good for Eve. She was cast out of the Garden of Eden along with Adam.

You can obey with exactness the law of tithing, the law of chastity, etc., etc., etc.. The hard ones are like the law to "love one another as I have loved you".

[Gray]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

So you sit back and say nothing in class to further the conversation , but come here to rant that Sunday School isn't about doing your own thing.

I've never seen stemelbow rant. 

[Guest]

To the OP...war is war, only the weapons have changed. Spiritual war is the same now as it was then. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Pa Pa

[Rain]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

When someone talks about fighting spiritual battles, i think about fighting satan and his influence on me and my family.  I don't think of actual physical fighting against other people.  That would be fighting physical battles in my view.

We had this lesson a couple of weeks ago.  Our teacher played a video clip from Elder Scott (from a conference address) where he says that the reason why it was so dangerous for the anti-nephi-lehi's to contemplate taking up their weapons again was because they were like addicts who had once been addicted to bloodshed and violence and that their souls might have been at stake should they do something that would put them back into that addiction again because it would be so easy to fall back into it (like an alcoholic who has a really good selfless reason to take a drink but that, regardless of the good reason, will still likely lead to heartache and despair).

The sons did not have that disposition though-they had never been blood thirsty and violent-so they could find to protect their families without damaging their own souls.

It was actually a huge lightbulb moment for me when we watched the clip because i realized how incredibly merciful God is and that the story isn't about punishing someone for breaking a covenant but it's about protecting someone from the horrible personal spiritual consequences that the covenant was meant to protect them from.

I'll see if i can find the conference address and add a link here if i can.

I subbed with lesson 31 two weeks ago. I was really struggling with the whole fighting against our enemies spiritually. I always have, but even more so because of a family situation.  All while I was preparing I was wondering just how I talk about fighting against your enemies when we are all spiritual brothers and sisters and some are close relatives and friends.  At one point in the scriptures it talked about the Nephites doing very well in battle, yet a few were still lost.  Then it hit me just what you said here.  That spiritually the enemy are not those people of this earth who fight against good so much as they are the casualties in the war against Satan.  That's how Christ can say to love our enemies.  It seems common sense, but when I am in the midst of it there was great peace to my heart.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Ok, so obeying in exactness is possible? 

Sometimes, sure.  The verse says that they obeyed every command (of Helaman's) with exactness.  Is it possible to obey a general with exactness?  Is it possible to obey the directions of a prophet with exactness?  I don't see why not.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well I have to put in my usual plug for ambiguity.

Different situations call for different interpretations of what the prophet "really meant" and whether or not what he "really meant" fits this particular situation or not.

So as usual, my answer is "it depends".

[mfbukowski]

Most of us here I think would be capable of being gospel doctrine teachers

For me that means that since I sustained the present teacher, I have taken on the responsibility of helping her teach the lesson as she has planned it.  That makes me in effect a co-teacher.

It is not my responsibility to sit back and expect to be entertained, nor is it my responsibility to cause controversy which detracts from her ability to control the class

If I am bored, I would need to bring in an important point about the subject from previous lessons I had heard, or look up a scripture that I think also applies which would help the discussion.

We should always consider ourselves as part of the ward leadership with a responsibility to lead others to Christ.  Many members are as children- and sometimes we need to act as if we are teaching a primary class.  At least from our perspective, it might seem that way.

The bishop is the "father of the ward" and we should take on that role as a parent to those less knowledgeable than we are in the ward.  We need to guide the "big brothers and sisters" in the ward family- the teachers- especially if we are more accomplished as "parents", guiding without being pushy with suggestions and interesting points to discuss if they do not come up with them themselves.   But the prime directive is do no disrupt- but help in every way possible, and remember there really are adult "children" in the gospel there in the class who know virtually nothing about the church.

Pretend you are a co-teacher in primary if necessary.  That is what leadership feels like most of the time.

[thesometimesaint]

I've taught Gospel Doctrine, Elders Quorum, and High Priest Groups. I've found for me to be the most effective is to ask lots of questions.

Edited September 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

'cept it was good when Eve did so.  Are we not to take that seriously? 

It wasn't "good." It was "necessary." In other words we all agreed to come to this world in a fallen state - that we may experience good and evil. Experiencing evil may not be good, but it is apparently necessary to progress. Otherwise there would be nothing to overcome, and no reason to be here. As the "mother" of the Church Eve made that decision for us. It is classic BoM theology.