Asked to teach a class about answering and dealing with hard questions

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At least none that they are willing to share. I don't mean that as a personal criticism at all but I think it's natural for people to hide their concerns with the church because of the judgment from family, friends, and priesthood leaders. I think it's a faulty assumption that they don't have concerns simply because you don't know about them. 

For the youth to share they have to feel extraordinarily safe from judgment. That's really hard to do...especially in 15 minutes. I really don't see how that's possible, other than to say "It's okay to have concerns and it's okay to voice them. Having questions does not make you unworthy."

That's definitely the approach, and probably the only real objective of the short class. 

In my experience, adults and youth alike *love* the opportunity to ask and discuss about the hard questions, and they are energized by the opportunity. I have given "ask anything about anything" Q&A firesides by priesthood leader invitation in the Gilbert, AZ area in the past, and they have run 2-3 hours (people could leave whenever they want, but many chose to stay until the end). 

The Q&As with our stake firesides, put on by my ward under the auspices of the stake ("Are Mormons Christian?," "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?," and "Can Mormon Prophets Stand up to Scrutiny?") were many people's favorite parts, although there were some members who were uncomfortable with the "wild west" nature of Q&A (we had ca. 130 non-members attend them, which was part of the point). Some people felt that "the Spirit left the room," but in reality, they weren't at all used to an unscripted, controlled environment, and they didn't like challenging questions being asked. The challenging questions, and the give-and-take, were really appropriate and respectful, but some sheltered members were horrified by it and felt that we shouldn't be doing it. 

My objective, in 15 minute classes, is really to help youth be able to deal with hard questions themselves (including seeking answers from good resources). For some, this whole topic will be new. We will be dealing with general, foundational principles. To actually get into approaches to specific questions requires time that I won't have.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Many times the social issues are a manifestation of a deeper doctrinal issue.

You're absolutely right. Underlying concerns about social issues are doctrinal issues as well. That's probably true of the other categories, too (e.g., one's doctrinal orientation will drive one's views on scriptural historicity).

I remember having a fireside for our youth with the Temple President. He had asked them to submit questions ahead of time and he would answer. I recall how dismissive he was when he began addressing questions because he said something like "these sound like they're more likely questions from your parents", as if the youth don't have deep thoughts or wonder about important things. That fireside was a huge missed opportunity.

I would never react, knee-jerk, that youth would just be parroting parents' thoughts. I'm a high school teacher, and a bishop over two wards (this time around, with 60+ youth). The youth are sharp as tacks, and think profoundly about things . . .  

With respect, I feel like that is a brush off to the concern about gays. What they were likely asking is "why is the church so unfair to gays with policies like ... SSM, November policy etc"

This particular fireside pre-dated the November 2015 policy by about a year. I'm certain that it was submitted by a non-member Norwegian foreign exchange student, and it is very inaccurate to state that "Mormons hate gays." I wanted to frame how Mormons actually treat gays, and point out that our doctrine about homosexuality does not denote "hate" of gays. Talk about false equivalence! 

 

[Rain]

Ok. We're moving to your ward. I'm not sure how we are going to sell the house that quick though.  My youngest will miss our stake youth conference this summer so we are going to have to move so he can come to yours. I guess that means I will be driving more for the next two years as he won't want to leave his high school.  

Meanwhile I'm hoping you can talk the stake into having your part be longer. 

I kind of think of the testimony group as "me" issues. Is something wrong with me that I can't get an answer/feel the Spirit? Do I not have enough faith to make a blessing work? Just things I have heard many say.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Rain

[rongo]

Would he like to come to ours? We have visitors and non-members at these things all the time --- a member visitor from up in the Valley would be more than welcome. Not sure how he'd feel about going to another stake's EFY blind, without knowing anyone at first, though . . .  

I have a son who is a priest (high school junior) and a daughter who is a Mia Maid (freshman). They are both well aware of FAIR and the FAIR message board, so they wouldn't bat an eye at me telling them that somebody's son off of the FAIR message board will be coming with us (I know, I know, FAIR divested itself of the message board years ago, but we all know that this is the heir apparent to that). 

If he would like to come, and it isn't too awkward for him, he's more than welcome.  

[Rain]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Would he like to come to ours? We have visitors and non-members at these things all the time --- a member visitor from up in the Valley would be more than welcome. Not sure how he'd feel about going to another stake's EFY blind, without knowing anyone at first, though . . .  

I have a son who is a priest (high school junior) and a daughter who is a Mia Maid (freshman). They are both well aware of FAIR and the FAIR message board, so they wouldn't bat an eye at me telling them that somebody's son off of the FAIR message board will be coming with us (I know, I know, FAIR divested itself of the message board years ago, but we all know that this is the heir apparent to that). 

If he would like to come, and it isn't too awkward for him, he's more than welcome.  

I'm not sure.  Bad timing to talk with him tonight. I'll see tomorrow.  It would be funny if he recognized your kids from the celebration.  My kids wore a gold shirt. What color did your kids wear? 

Would you email me the date and times please?  I need to see admit timing before talking with him. 

[rongo]

I'd love input on quick examples for each of these categories of issues. Realizing that there is overlap; this is an intentional over-simplification, given the audience, venue, and time constraints. e.g., the priesthood ban would be both a doctrinal and a Church historical issue, in my book.

1. Social issues (priesthood ban, gay marriage, abortion, [others?] )

2. Doctrinal issues (gender/orientation, non-Mormon Christian creeds vs. Mormon doctrine, pre-existence and hereafter, [others?] )

3. Policy issues (gay marriage, 

4. Church historical issues (blood atonement/MMM; issues in New York, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and territorial Utah; [others?] )

5. Scriptural issues (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the Bible, archaeology/science, [others?] )

6. Testimony issues (doubts, why? questions*, [others?] )

* I really liked Rain's comment on #6: "I kind of think of the testimony group as "me" issues. Is something wrong with me that I can't get an answer/feel the Spirit? Do I not have enough faith to make a blessing work? Just things I have heard many say."

----

What are my glaring gaps that could/should be added in? Deletions?

I think it might be good, as part of a handout, to briefly list these six overarching categories and some major examples of each, like above (but refined and improved). We may be addressing youth with *no* concerns more than those with concerns: i.e., how do we reach out and help people with concerns? So, a brief discussion of the big picture of types of concerns people have (and some youth have them or have wondered about them, too) is important.

Thanks a ton in advance!

[pogi]

One major issue I don't see listed would be polygamy/polyandry.

You could address the tension between , "the prophet will never lead us astray" and fallible prophets or false/contradicting statements  

You could discuss issues with defining just what official doctrine really is, where it can be found (Ensign and conference talks are not official doctrine, etc.), and what makes it official doctrine. 

You could address issues of failed priesthood blessings/patriarchal blessings, etc.  That was the beginning catalyst to my brother-in-laws exit from the church.

Different first vision accounts.

Those are a few off the top of my head.

 

[rongo]

All excellent points! I don't know how polygamy didn't make it on the list. I was thinking of it while typing. It's the one thing some people have heard of the Church. 

Thanks!

ETA: I think I included polygamy in my mind under " issues in New York, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and territorial Utah."  

Edited February 10, 2017 by rongo
ETA

[hagoth7]

On 2/7/2017 at 3:19 PM, bluebell said:

If it misses the point, then what is the point?

? I second the motion.

Cinepro, if...then...what *is* the point?

[hagoth7]

On 2/7/2017 at 10:47 AM, rongo said:

. . . for an upcoming stake EFY (two weeks).

The challenge is going to be time. They would like me to help equip youth and also take questions --- in fifteen minutes....

??!

[hagoth7]

Rongo,

Very intrigued to hear how this goes.

Please do share.

[hagoth7]

On 2/9/2017 at 10:05 AM, rongo said:

...Some people felt that "the Spirit left the room," but in reality, they weren't at all used to an unscripted, controlled environment, and they didn't like challenging questions being asked. The challenging questions, and the give-and-take, were really appropriate and respectful, but some sheltered members were horrified by it and felt that we shouldn't be doing it...

Yep. Circle-the-wagons types don't fair as well in the serving the needs of 21st-century audiences.

They will hopefully soon realize that cognitive dissonance and stupor are *not* at all the same thing.

It is a disservice to the Restoration message, to the learning process, and to those earnestly seeking to teach/learn - when the temporarily faint of heart (who understandably view themselves as guardians of the status quo) suggest that temporary dissonance isn't an important part of the learning process. Especially when needing to challenge an audience's long-held views, traditions, and/or prejudices.

Kudos to you and your stake. Would love to be a fly on the wall at that presentation. Please do return and report.

[rongo]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:27 PM, Rain said:

I'm not sure.  Bad timing to talk with him tonight. I'll see tomorrow.  It would be funny if he recognized your kids from the celebration.  My kids wore a gold shirt. What color did your kids wear? 

Would you email me the date and times please?  I need to see admit timing before talking with him. 

--- Friday the 17th, Maricopa stake center, 7:00 - 9:30 PM.

--- Saturday the 18th, Maricopa stake center, 8:00 AM - 2:00 PM + dance @ 7:00 PM

--- Sunday the 19th, Maricopa stake center, 7:00 - 8:00 PM (fireside)

I think we're about 40 minutes from where you live, as the crow flies. 

No big deal if he doesn't want to come. Going to an outside stake activity where you don't know anybody would be asking a lot of a teenager.  

Our stake wore green shirts, and sang the closing number at the cultural celebration ("We're the Lucky Ones"). 

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/7/2017 at 7:40 PM, california boy said:

Many will reject what you said and base their objection to the law of chastity never changing.  But the problem the church is having with the youth and many others is that they can not understand why a gay couple is not entitled to marry and sex within those bounds of marriage.  Everyone is entitled to a happy and fulfilling life.  When the church tries to teach that gays are not entitled to that same life, then some will push back or simply leave.  Yeah, it is that simple.

In this world, people are "entitled" to do a lot of things with their agency.  People are entitled to have open marriages.  They are entitled to have relationships outside of marriage.  They are entitled to life a Hugh Hefner life.  Mortality is a condition where people are allowed to do a lot of different things.  However what the Church is focused on is getting people through this period so they can stand before God at judgement clean and ready for Celestial glory.  The Church is not for those who goal is to live a Terrestrial or Telestial lifestyle.  For those people, there is no need to be a member of the Church.  People are entitled to live according to Terrestrial and Telestial standards and they will receive their appointed kingdom in the resurrection that they desire.  As the scriptures say God has prepared for the filthy a place that is worthy for the filthy.  If one desires the Celestial Kingdom, then it requires a strict standard that the "world" does not follow.  The Church exists for these people who desire the gold metal or standard which means rejecting what is accepted by society and accepting what is accepted by God. 

There is a old ad the Marines put out.  It had the slogan that they were looking for a few good men with the metal to be Marines.  I sort of liken that to the Church and its goals  We are not going to convert the world to our standards.  The vast majority reject us or are not willing to put off the natural man but seek to amplify what they say is natural. We seek a few good men and women who desire celestial glory and are willing to conform their lives to that tight standard to achieve it.

Edited February 11, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[rongo]

16 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Yep. Circle-the-wagons types don't fair as well in the serving the needs of 21st-century audiences.

They will hopefully soon realize that cognitive dissonance and stupor are *not* at all the same thing.

Those firesides were such a blast, and a good experience! My ward mission leader and I were both members of the FAIR list, and our ward mission goals centered around things we actually have control over (i.e., things that don't rely on others' agency, like baptisms and discussions taught). The stake president gave us carte blanche (he trusted us completely), and we planned for him to present for "Are Mormons Christian?," my primary president to present for "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?," and I to present for "Can Mormon Prophets Stand Up to Scrutiny?" The presenters answered questions in Q&A with me and a member of the stake presidency. We heavily advertised --- hence the 130+ non-members.

I remember a member of another ward being very angry about the whole idea, when posters were hung around the stake ("Why are we doing this?"). Another man asked me who was answering questions, and when I told him, he pointed his finger in my chest and said, "You guys had better be good." He was very worried that it would go badly. Afterwards, he was delighted with everything --- "That was the best fireside I've ever experienced!"

Lou Midgely used to say that "Mormon nice" is a big hindrance to Mormons, and what he meant by that is our propensity to avoid anything that remotely resembles or approaches conflict. That was the big problem for people who did not like the firesides, and the people who were uncomfortable with "edgy" topics and Q&As intended to attract non-members or people struggling. They were scandalized by the Q&As and found them to be contentious. They weren't at all --- the anti-Mormon ministries and non-members who asked questions were very respectful, and so were the answerers, but there were points of disagreement. That it wasn't a controlled environment terrified those who didn't like it, and they found the respectful give-and-take to be "contention" and "conflict" when it wasn't at all. For the vast majority, they were energized by the fact that competent answers could be given to anything that was thrown at answerers. Things like that have an innoculative effect: many people are comforted knowing that there are answers and that others are able to give them, even if they themselves couldn't if put on the spot. Of course, there are others who want to know the actual answers to everything (nothing wrong with that), and these people were among the members who asked questions. 

I think overall things like that are good for members to experience. Not that 15 minute youth conference classes are remotely similar to that.   It's good for youth to know that a) there are people who have questions, b) maybe they have questions?, c) there are resources, assumptions, and fundamental things to know about questions. So, we'll do what we can in the time that we have . . .  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

In this world, people are "entitled" to do a lot of things with their agency.  People are entitled to have open marriages.  They are entitled to have relationships outside of marriage.  They are entitled to life a Hugh Hefner life.  Mortality is a condition where people are allowed to do a lot of different things.  However what the Church is focused on is getting people through this period so they can stand before God at judgement clean and ready for Celestial glory.  The Church is not for those who goal is to live a Terrestrial or Telestial lifestyle.  For those people, there is no need to be a member of the Church.  People are entitled to live according to Terrestrial and Telestial standards and they will receive their appointed kingdom in the resurrection that they desire.  As the scriptures say God has prepared for the filthy a place that is worthy for the filthy.  If one desires the Celestial Kingdom, then it requires a strict standard that the "world" does not follow.  The Church exists for these people who desire the gold metal or standard which means rejecting what is accepted by society and accepting what is accepted by God. 

There is a old ad the Marines put out.  It had the slogan that they were looking for a few good men with the metal to be Marines.  I sort of liken that to the Church and its goals  We are not going to convert the world to our standards.  The vast majority reject us or are not willing to put off the natural man but seek to amplify what they say is natural. We seek a few good men and women who desire celestial glory and are willing to conform their lives to that tight standard to achieve it.

Yet the church spends millions of dollars to take away the civil rights of gay couples because they believe that while Hugh Hefner is allowed to make the choices in his life, gay couples ARE NOT.  Gay couples should NEVER be allowed to marry.  Just because you are gay you  should NEVER be allowed to find a companion to share their life with.  Gay couples should NEVER get the choice to do what THEY think is the right path for them.  Gay couples should not be allowed to kiss.  Gay couples should not be allowed to hug.  Heck, they shouldn't even hold hands.  They shouldn't even be a couple.  They are apostates.  The children of gay couples should not be allowed the choice to be baptized.  And that is the message the youth of the church hear coming from the leadership of the church.  

[carbon dioxide]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet the church spends millions of dollars to take away the civil rights of gay couples because they believe that while Hugh Hefner is allowed to make the choices in his life, gay couples ARE NOT.  Gay couples should NEVER be allowed to marry.  Just because you are gay you  should NEVER be allowed to find a companion to share their life with.  Gay couples should NEVER get the choice to do what THEY think is the right path for them.  Gay couples should not be allowed to kiss.  Gay couples should not be allowed to hug.  Heck, they shouldn't even hold hands.  They shouldn't even be a couple.  They are apostates.  The children of gay couples should not be allowed the choice to be baptized.  And that is the message the youth of the church hear coming from the leadership of the church.  

The Church has a responsibility to make a stand on moral issues.  Perhaps the tact the church took could have been better but if the Church said nothing it would not be fulfilling one of its responsibilities to be standing as a witness for Christ and the gospel in at all times and places.  The message to the youth is regardless of what society does and how attitudes in society changes, eternal standards do not change.  God does not make decisions on eternal laws based on the Gregorian calendar or anything thing else man does.  It does not matter if its 1935, 2017, or 3200 A.D.  The courts decided that gays can marry in the US according to the US constitution.  So gays in American can marry. It has no relevance for someone living outside the US.   The Church has accepted this reality and is moving forward with how things are at this time.   You say the church was spending money to take away their civil rights to marry.  That is not really accurate.  The questions was whether they had a civil right to marry and the courts eventually had to decide it.  One can't take away a civil right when that right was not established.  It was not a clear that they had that right.  After all it was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.  So gay marriage is a recognized right simply because one judge decided to vote with one side over the other side.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.  I don't like 5-4 Supreme Court decisions on any issue.

Edited February 12, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church has a responsibility to make a stand on moral issues.  Perhaps the tact the church took could have been better but if the Church said nothing it would not be fulfilling one of its responsibilities to be standing as a witness for Christ and the gospel in at all times and places.  The message to the youth is regardless of what society does and how attitudes in society changes, eternal standards do not change.  God does not make decisions on eternal laws based on the Gregorian calendar or anything thing else man does.  It does not matter if its 1935, 2017, or 3200 A.D.  The courts decided that gays can marry in the US according to the US constitution.  So gays in American can marry. It has no relevance for someone living outside the US.   The Church has accepted this reality and is moving forward with how things are at this time.   You say the church was spending money to take away their civil rights to marry.  That is not really accurate.  The questions was whether they had a civil right to marry and the courts eventually had to decide it.  One can't take away a civil right when that right was not established.  It was not a clear that they had that right.  After all it was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.  So gay marriage is a recognized right simply because one judge decided to vote with one side over the other side.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.  I don't like 5-4 Supreme Court decisions on any issue.

The California Supreme court RULED that gay couples have a CIVIL RIGHT to marry in the state of California.  That is why it was legal for gay couples to marry prior to Prop 8.  Prop 8 took away that civil right om the state of California.   So yes. gay couples did indeed have the civil right to marry and the Mormons decided they should pour millions of dollars to campaign to take away that civil right.  DON"T REWRITE HISTORY.  

No one is saying that that the church did not have a responsibility to speak out about anything that it wants including how it feels about gay couples that marry.  The church can be against gay marriage.  The church can call gay couples apostates.  The church can deny their children baptism.  But when did it become part of the three fold mission of the church to attack the civil rights of any American?  

And the right for gay couples to marry was not determined simply by 5 judges on the Supreme Court.  Virtually EVERY SINGLE judge and court in this country ruled that gay couples have a right to marry.  Heck, even the federal courts of Utah ruled that gays have the civil right to marry.  So don't simply make this an issue that 5 judges decided.  

The Mormon church has rewritten history for decades.  Looks like it is trying to rewrite history to suit it's narrative once again.  But in this day and age, too many youth know the truth.  Is all you have to do is google the California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.  Right there in the ruling in black and white it clearly ruled that gay couples have the civil right to marry in the state of California.  And when some speaker speaking to the youth tries to tell them as you have done here that the church did not work to take away the civil rights of gay couples, just what do you think will happen when one of the youth stands up and corrects this myth?  

[strappinglad]

Did gays have the right to marry in ,say ,1960? If not, why not? Personally I think they did, but the State decided that they weren't going to be accepted by the State. The decision at that time was political of course. Fast forward 50 years. The court took the view that gays DID have the right to marry and that the State should fully recognize such a marriage. Politics again entered into the fray and prop8 was the result. Many of the  PEOPLE said , no,  gays did not have the right. Then the courts again said yes they did. So far most if not all courts have backed up the original decision. So, now gay marriage is a right. It wasn't one according to the STATE 50 years ago. Was the right always there or was it invented?

 About 150 years ago , the Church said that according to the US Constitution, it had the right to live its religion without State interference and practice polygamy. Some States disagreed and eventually , after much resistance from the Church, the Highest court said, NO, polygamy is NOT a right granted by the constitution. Fast forward , shall we say 20 years from now, I predict that polygamy will once again be considered a right. Was it not then always a right that was dismissed or hindered by the STATE?  The State giveth and the State taketh away. There is that document that states individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit  of happiness. Unfortunately, the document doesn't say that no one will ever have to fight for such rights.

  I heard an interesting thing about a sign in Justice Scalia's (?) desk that read " Stupid but Constitutional " Time will tell which ' rights ' we get granted fit into that category.

[cdowis]

On 2/7/2017 at 0:47 PM, rongo said:

I'm excited, though. It will be very interesting to see what the actual concerns are from stake youth. I know that my youth in my ward don't have "Gospel Topics Essays" concerns. 

You might find this helpful == quick and dirty questions and answers

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/57532-youtube-apologetics/

[Tacenda]

I probably should start a new topic, but figured I'd rant here instead. My husband taught a primary class last week about the BoM translation process, and in the lesson there was never a mention of a hat being involved. 

Are they only teaching this to the older youth? Such as in Seminary?

Sorry if I've derailed, but this may need clearing up in your question and answer time Rongo, since they haven't been taught the real way early on.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I probably should start a new topic, but figured I'd rant here instead. My husband taught a primary class last week about the BoM translation process, and in the lesson there was never a mention of a hat being involved. 

Are they only teaching this to the older youth? Such as in Seminary?

Sorry if I've derailed, but this may need clearing up in your question and answer time Rongo, since they haven't been taught the real way early on.

I know of a couple of parents who taught this particular lesson in their ward.  They wanted to change it soo.o.o...bad..and simply tell the truth.  They outlined the lesson online that they would have liked to have given.  It was truthful.and would have worked better than what we learned before we...learned.  Oh well...I am wondering how Family Home Evening lessons are and what would a parent do...especially when you have teens in your family in seminary as well as toddlers..??

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I probably should start a new topic, but figured I'd rant here instead. My husband taught a primary class last week about the BoM translation process, and in the lesson there was never a mention of a hat being involved. 

Are they only teaching this to the older youth? Such as in Seminary?

Sorry if I've derailed, but this may need clearing up in your question and answer time Rongo, since they haven't been taught the real way early on.

They have been using the same primary lessons/manuals since the 90s, Primary will probably be the last manuals to change if it goes the way it has been in the past.  They change about every 20-30 years.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I know of a couple of parents who taught this particular lesson in their ward.  They wanted to change it soo.o.o...bad..and simply tell the truth.  They outlined the lesson online that they would have liked to have given.  It was truthful.and would have worked better than what we learned before we...learned.  Oh well...I am wondering how Family Home Evening lessons are and what would a parent do...especially when you have teens in your family in seminary as well as toddlers..??

FHE lessons are left up to the parent.  They can teach whatever they want.  The FHE manual is the same one since the 80s iirc, they have added a video supplement in the 90s iirc.  The manual is more for helping parents learn how to teach lessons than providing all the lessons you need.  I don't believe it has even a year's worth of lessons included.  More likely just enough to help the parent fill confident in their teaching.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Calm

[Johnnie Cake]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:18 AM, rongo said:

I'm trying to look at the overall big picture of "hard questions," or questions that people have concerns about. Am I missing any big categories, or are these pretty much the five general categories that all concerns and questions can be sorted into?

1. Social issues

 

2. Doctrinal issues

 

3. Policy issues

 

4. Church Historical issues

 

5. Scriptural issues 

 

You might create an "issue" by admitting there are "issues".