3 Nephi 26:14 - Why did he speak to the children?

[Rain]

"And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues, and they did speak unto their fathers great and marvelous things, even greater than he had revealed unto the people; and he loosed their tongues that they could utter."

This was the question asked in class, but I am unsatisfied with the answers given. I know we don't have actual knowledge, but I'm trying to think of possible reasons. 

Why did Christ talk to the children first and then they taught their parents?

One answer was that the children would understand better than the adults so they learned and then taught the adults, but the children didn't understand better than Christ so it doesn't make sense that was the reason he taught the children first. 

Pretty much all of the reasons given lacked that Christ was the one who would teach if the children didn't. 

So what ideas do you have?

[JLHPROF]

No false traditions to be overcome, less mortal weaknesses, more spiritual sensitivity.

But why the kids to teach the parents instead of Christ teaching directly?  I really have no idea.  Good question.
 

[JAHS]

I think it was also to show the adults the power of God being made manifest through the things these young innocent children said to their parents. 

[Bobbieaware]

51 minutes ago, Rain said:

"And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues, and they did speak unto their fathers great and marvelous things, even greater than he had revealed unto the people; and he loosed their tongues that they could utter."

This was the question asked in class, but I am unsatisfied with the answers given. I know we don't have actual knowledge, but I'm trying to think of possible reasons. 

Why did Christ talk to the children first and then they taught their parents?

One answer was that the children would understand better than the adults so they learned and then taught the adults, but the children didn't understand better than Christ so it doesn't make sense that was the reason he taught the children first. 

Pretty much all of the reasons given lacked that Christ was the one who would teach if the children didn't. 

So what ideas do you have?

He didn't teach the children first. He taught the parents for hours before he taught the children.

 

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

He didn't teach the children first. He taught the parents for hours before he taught the children.

 

Yes, but while he taught the parents first, he then taught the children things he didn't teach the parents and then the children taught those "marvelous"  things to the parents. 

So why did he teach those marvelous things to the children first?

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, but while he taught the parents first, he then taught the children things he didn't teach the parents and then the children taught those "marvelous"  things to the parents. 

So why did he teach those marvelous things to the children first?

I love this chapter of the Book of Mormon as a member.  I remember thinking that he taught the little children things because they had just left the spirit world and that their spirits were tender and more receptive to  understanding.

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I love this chapter of the Book of Mormon as a member.  I remember thinking that he taught the little children things because they had just left the spirit world and that their spirits were tender and more receptive to  understanding.

Yes, I love this part as well. I agree that they were more receptive to receptive.

I'm just not sure why they would teach the parents instead of Him teaching them the "marvelous" things together. Were the parents more receptive to the children than they were to Christ?

[strappinglad]

Have you ever listened to your child give a talk or testimony in sacrament? Did you doze off? Did you find yourself distracted? Not normally. Usually you are hyper aware of what they say. Now add in that they are speaking at a level well beyond their years about concepts you have not discussed with them before. Are you paying attention now or are you focused on your iPhone app?

Out of the mouths of babes...

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Yes, but while he taught the parents first, he then taught the children things he didn't teach the parents and then the children taught those "marvelous"  things to the parents. 

So why did he teach those marvelous things to the children first?

1. What JHLPROF said. And what strappinglad said.

2. And a little child *shall* lead them.

3. What was said simply can't/shouldn't be uttered. So says that book in more than one passage. If one had the answer to that, one might have the answer to *why* they were the ones first taught.

Edited June 27, 2017 by hagoth7

[Jeanne]

47 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, I love this part as well. I agree that they were more receptive to receptive.

I'm just not sure why they would teach the parents instead of Him teaching them the "marvelous" things together. Were the parents more receptive to the children than they were to Christ?

I think so.  Christ talked to the parents for long time.  But I feel that I would have been more receptive to my child because I knew my child.  A parent, knowing the capabilities of their child would see a great enlightment and almost miraculous change in their countenance.  They would see a mortal change.

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Have you ever listened to your child give a talk or testimony in sacrament? Did you doze off? Did you find yourself distracted? Not normally. Usually you are hyper aware of what they say. Now add in that they are speaking at a level well beyond their years about concepts you have not discussed with them before. Are you paying attention now or are you focused on your iPhone app?

Out of the mouths of babes...

But wouldn't that be the same with listening to Christ?

[strappinglad]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

But wouldn't that be the same with listening to Christ?

If Christ did it the way He did, He must have thought it a better way. Maybe there was a faction of the crowd that need a bit more ' revelation ' .

[Rain]

Just now, strappinglad said:

If Christ did it the way He did, He must have thought it a better way. Maybe there was a faction of the crowd that need a bit more ' revelation ' .

I'm not arguing that he did it the wrong way. Just trying to come up with ideas of why it was the right way. First I was curious, but as I read through the thread it tells me there is something I can learn for being better able to teach.

This strikes me as a possibility: "the power of God being made manifest through the things these young innocent children said to their parents. " Jeanne's countenance change goes with that idea well. 

I go back and forth with yours kind of. On the one hand it seems reasonable that coming through just Christ would be enough. On the other hand I think of the idea of using different methods of teaching keeps people interests and it is good to switch them on occasion. 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, but while he taught the parents first, he then taught the children things he didn't teach the parents and then the children taught those "marvelous"  things to the parents. 

So why did he teach those marvelous things to the children first?

The thing that's throwing you off here is you're trying to understand the quoted verse out of proper context. If you read the previous verses of 3 Nephi 26, you'll see the Lord first taught the parents the deepest mysteries of the gospel -- doctrines so deep that Mormon was strictly forbidden of the Lord to include them in the unsealed portion of the plates. In those earlier verses, Mormon testifies the Lord taught the adults ALL THINGS, meaning the GREATER PORTION of the gospel of Christ, (I.e. the kinds of hidden mysteries of God that are only to be found on the sealed portion of the plates). So it's way off base to say the children learned most of the deeper and more profound doctrines of the gospel mysteries before their parents learned them.

Now keeping the above in mind, I believe the reasons why the Lord had the little children learn and teach their parents a few of the remaining deep doctrines of Christ that the parents didn't already know, and it is because he wanted to: 1) Teach the parents to not get puffed up in pride because of their exceedingly great knowledge of the hidden mysteries of God. By having the children learn and teach their parents even greater mysteries than they already knew, it was to be clearly understood that it was the mercy and power of God and not the parent's own righteousness or intellectual capacity that enabled them to have such a great knowledge of sacred things. This remarkable sacred event was a great lesson on the necessity of maintaining deep humility. 2) Teach the parents that after the Lord's departure they should treat their children with deepest respect and make every effort to fully include them in Church meetings and family gospel study. 3) Reinforce the Savior's teaching that the parents must become as meek, humble and submissive as their little children if they are going to successfully endure to the end in righteousness.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Rain]

 

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Now keeping the above in mind, I believe the reasons why the Lord had the little children learn and teach their parents a few of the remaining deep doctrines of Christ that the parents didn't already know

This is what I have been talking about all along. I'm sorry I didn't communicate it in such a way that you would understand. 

17 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

1) Teach the parents to not get puffed up in pride because of their exceedingly great knowledge of the hidden mysteries of God. By having the children learn and teach their parents even greater mysteries than they already knew, it was to be clearly understood that it was the mercy and power of God and not the parent's own righteousness or intellectual capacity that enabled them to have such a great knowledge of sacred things. This remarkable sacred event was a great lesson on the necessity of maintaining deep humility. 2) Teach the parents that after the Lord's departure they should treat their children with deepest respect and make every effort to fully include them in Church meetings and family gospel study. 3) Reinforce the Savior's teaching that the parents must become as meek, humble and submissive as their little children if they are going to successfully endure to the end in righteousness.

I see 1 & 3 as the same basic idea. I would like to go back through the chapters before and see if they stick for me. 

Why do you like the #2 idea? Is there something that has stuck out to you that shows a lack of respect for children or not including them?

[Glenn101]

It is interesting to note that none of that generation of children fell away from the gospel. It was their children and children's children that began to fall away. (Correct me if I am wrong on this point. Speaking from memory here.) So maybe it wasn't so much to teach their parents than it was to help them to gain a testimony of their own rather than receive the message from their parents.

The more righteous part of the Nephites had been spared, but there just may have been a lot of deficiencies in the parents in that more righteous part teaching their children the gospel. After Jesus finished, he had two generations well versed in the gospel, and apparently testimonies of it.

Glenn

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

 

This is what I have been talking about all along. I'm sorry I didn't communicate it in such a way that you would understand. 

I see 1 & 3 as the same basic idea. I would like to go back through the chapters before and see if they stick for me. 

Why do you like the #2 idea? Is there something that has stuck out to you that shows a lack of respect for children or not including them?

Parents automatically assume their little children are unable to grasp deep and complex concepts and for this reason they tend to baby their little children and treat them as far less than their equals when it comes to things like depth of wisdom and magnitude of intellect. If it hadn't been for the miraculous event recorded  in 3 Nephi 26 (an encounter with Christ where young Nephite children powerfully demonstrated they not only had the capacity to understand gospel truths more profound than their extremely informed parents understood but that they also had the ability to effectively teach those advanced truths as well), these children would have in all likelyhood been babied and dealt with like typical "simple-minded" youngsters. But after this perception-shattering event, these parents would have been unavoidably caused to realize their little ones were, in reality, Incredibly wise and intelligent human beings. Because of what occurred, these parents would never view little children in the same light again -- a deeper RESPECT for the children's divine capacities as the offspring of God would have replaced the normal tendency to view little children as naive and lacking in spiritual knowledge. 

I believe these little children aren't unique because I have believed for a long time that little children, because of their purity in Christ, intuitively grasp very deep gospel concepts, but because at that age they have only a very rudimentary knowledge of human language they cannot express to the outside world the profound mysteries of truth they innately know and feel. But because these little Nephite children were given a special manifestation of the gift of tongues, they were able to put into recognizable spoken language what would have ordinarily remained forever locked in their hearts. But by the time little children have grown old enough to have become somewhat proficient in language, much of their innocence and purity have been lost and they no longer consciously grasp what they intuitively understood so well when they were little.

The lesson here is that even little children should be taught to pray and should be immersed in spiritual things beginning at a very early age, and this because their capacity to understand divine truth is much greater than many parents -- even Latter-Day Saint parents -- realize. The very real spiritual capacities of little children need to be acknowledged and nurtured and, as divine beings, they need to be shown all due honor and RESPECT.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[janderich]

Once my daughter who was about four or five taught me a great lesson. The day before she had fallen a short distance out of a tree and broken her leg. I prayed that the Lord might heal her and determined to pronounce a blessing on her head that she might be healed. Before the blessing I told her about the children that had been healed by Jesus when he came to the Nephites and Lamanites. I asked her if she had faith that the same could happen to her. She said yes. I then pronounced the blessing that she should be healed. Immediately after the blessing she said, "Dad, take the cast off so I can get up and walk". Well I was flabbergasted, how could I take off her splint? She couldn't just get up and walk!

I didn't end up taking the splint off. I was too worried about what would happen. I learned a hard and valuable lesson about my lack of faith, and about children's simple and profound trust. I have marveled again and again by what my daughter taught me. My prayers changed after that day. I started praying that I would not destroy my child's faith.

Perhaps, Jesus didn't teach the children anything so profound. Perhaps he just opened their mouths that they might speak what was already in their hearts to their Mother's and Fathers. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by janderich

[BlueDreams]

For one, to fulfill prophetic words stated in the past that even children would speak profound truths. 

For another, to continue to restructure the way of their society. Most societies, even now, generally do not place real value in children's views. When I first came to discussion boards I was hyper-conscious about telling people my age. The reason was simple. If someone disagreed with me in some way or another my age was often used as a way to disqualify my opinion. I couldn't really know because I'd only lived on this earth for 14-18 years of life. Even when they agree with me, my age could then be used as a battering ram and it wasn't super flattering. It basically came along the lines of "look even BD gets this! She's more X (mature, intuitive, aware) and she's 14 years old!" So as I came to boards I became more and more cautious not to tell my age or to mention it rarely enough that it could be buried by the general flow of boards. As an adult I sometimes find myself doing that as well. It's easy to slip into. 

In societies and circumstances that have become power oriented, disrupted, and chaotic, children's value in society can become far more reduced and harmed. Children can become useful arms to what they need done. They can have their parent's frustrations and criticisms piled on them. They can take the brunt of the adult world in abandonment, emotional harm, taking on adult's problems and failures, forms of violence against their bodies and personhood, etc. 

I think having this great wisdom given to children to be taught to their parents reiterated several of Christ's messages in a very potent way. That children are what we all are to God. But also that children have an inherent value. In one quick move he taught to reduce our natural urge to ignore, patronize, and assume supremacy over the capacities and lives of children. In teaching them the ways of God and having them as messengers of the divine, He could heal what a disruptive and broken society probably was experiencing in forms of harm and neglect of their most vulnerable populations. It isn't that Christ couldn't teach them this. He could. But it was probably more powerful for Him to show them the value of every person. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 27, 2017 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

"And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues, and they did speak unto their fathers great and marvelous things, even greater than he had revealed unto the people; and he loosed their tongues that they could utter."

This was the question asked in class, but I am unsatisfied with the answers given. I know we don't have actual knowledge, but I'm trying to think of possible reasons. 

Why did Christ talk to the children first and then they taught their parents?

One answer was that the children would understand better than the adults so they learned and then taught the adults, but the children didn't understand better than Christ so it doesn't make sense that was the reason he taught the children first. 

Pretty much all of the reasons given lacked that Christ was the one who would teach if the children didn't. 

So what ideas do you have?

I think it is a type for the principle, “we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.” I also think it reiterates and emphasizes the principle in 3 Nephi 11:37-38, “And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things. And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.” It is interesting that he instructed the parents to behold their little ones’ capacity (3 Nephi 17:23-24); I think the teaching format in 3 Nephi 26:14 gives the children a way to demonstrate the capacity given them in Chapter 17 and the parents an opportunity to behold them in an additional light, and consider how they might follow their example as instructed in Chapter 11. The capacity I refer to is being an actual, realized heir in the kingdom of God.

Edited June 27, 2017 by CV75

[theplains]

On 2017-6-26 at 6:04 PM, Rain said:

"And it came to pass that he did teach and minister unto the children of the multitude of whom hath been spoken, and he did loose their tongues, and they did speak unto their fathers great and marvelous things, even greater than he had revealed unto the people; and he loosed their tongues that they could utter."

Why did Christ talk to the children first and then they taught their parents?

Where do you see the idea that the children taught the parents?   But it does say that these children spoke greater things
than what Jesus had revealed to the people. Oddly enough, it doesn't say anything about what these 'great and marvelous
things' supposedly were (like a secret combination that only a privileged group of people have access to). 

Jim

[Ginger Snaps]

The footnotes through these verses are interesting. Like Matt 11:25:

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

I think the use of the word prudent is so interesting here. I feel like in our culture today we get cautious about the gifts and power we are entitled to and we live below our privilege, whether it's because we're afraid or we don't want to appear "weird" or we don't think we're entitled or whatever. I've read and heard it said that often God has to work around what we think we know, and maybe he had less to work around with these children. 

Maybe it was to remind the parents/adults that the children are his children too and are not "less than". Maybe to strengthen the rising generation and thus prolong the effect of his visit upon the descendants. In any case it seems to be a direct fulfillment of prophesy. And to me it brings to mind the idea of "the first shall be last and the last shall be first". 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Ginger Snaps