Casting out fear again, but planting seeds for good

[stemelbow]

Last week I started a thread asking about fear in the Church and referenced President Uchtdorf's talk.  I got some good responses which helped me this past Sunday in Elder's Quorum.  It's been a couple of years but not too long ago I was a counselor in the EQP, which had me teaching EQ at times.  Each time I taught, it seems, difficult topics were broached.  Well fast forward a couple of years and it feels like we have a whole new crop of elder's, which is only partly true. 

I was a little nervous about Sunday.  Some of you might remember that I've been asked, by a bishop and SP, to keep quiet in Church, basically.  It's been interesting, definitely making me feel unwelcome.  Some of you might also remember me describing the level of gossip about me and my wife which has in some measure made it back to our ears.  All of this made me feel nervous.  I was surprised last week when a counselor in the EQP asked me to teach.  I said yes, particularly since I've always enjoyed President Uchtdorf's thoughts as much as any of the our general leaders. 

This talk I was not a particular fan of.  I started the lesson by asking the brethren to imagine a future day.  Imagine in this future day that you learn that the Church is not necessarily all that it claims.  That in the process of learning this, you also come to the conclusion that your testimony as you know it carries many assumptions that you start to question.  That all of this process leads you to conclude you are better off outside the Church and you become for all intents and purposes an apostate.  So I asked them what feelings they might feel, right now, about that future prospect.  If they knew somehow this was going to happen down the road, what feelings might they have now thinking that this was coming.  It was interesting.  The unanimous response seemed to be, "that won't happen to me, so there's no point imagining it."  with one responded saying, I'd have to be a really hateful and angry person to get there, and while possible, I just don't think it'll happen.  I thanked them for their thoughts and asked them to hold on to it a minute.  We'll get back to the idea. 

We read this paragraph:

Quote

Experts in marketing understand the power of fear and often employ it. This is why some advertisements seem to carry the implicit message that if we fail to buy their breakfast cereal or miss out on the newest video game or cell phone, we run the risk of living a miserable life, dying alone and unhappy.

I asked them to help identify a product's advertising that might be using this tactic.  No answers were given.  I admitted I couldn't think of such advertising.  I did think of a local (I believe) effort for not smoking, wherein fear is used to keep people from smoking.  But then I explained when I think of fears that have come in my life and from what source they come, they almost always tie back to the Church.  "So" I said, "when I think of missing out on things and 'living a miserable life, dying alone and unhappy', I think of what the Church has told me>  That's the only source from which I can think of that talks about it.  And the message is quite clear--to avoid such unhappiness I have to strictly live the Church's teachings." 

they objected to the fact that the Church uses fear.  "I explained that this fear tactic is hard for any of us to avoid--to be completely void of.  It creeps into our dealings with our children, or spouse, at work, or in personal interactions with friends and associates.  In this sense, it's no wonder it's also found as a tool within the Church and at times by the Church. "

There seemed to, at this early point to be a lot of discomfort.  I pointed out it might be a bit odd or ironic that here we are preaching about fear, but the teacher concludes the biggest player in the fear game has been the church, as we talk about a speech by a leader of the Church.  I pressed a little more to suggest that we ought to have room to speak about this since the topic was broached in conference, even if President Uchtdorf, it seemed to me, avoided that elephant in the room.  What fears do we all have that are not related to Church?  not much response.  I admitted I don't know that I have any.  This doesn't mean the Church is always behind the fear, or inducing our fears, but we have them.  But it also might be that the Church has played on a fears and sad to say, Pres Uchtdorf called such a tactic manipulation. 

So I don't plan to get it to it all, but later on I presented another scenario.  "Imagine a well respected member of our quorum (using the EQP as an example), comes back to us at some point and tells us he's leaving the Church.  He's been visited by an angel, or Jesus Himself who told him to do so.  But what was also told him was he had a work to do....a great work.  A work to bring millions to Christ.  But to do it, he'd have to leave the Church.  That part he wasn't to tell us.  Just that he was leaving and was visited by an angel". 

The response I think in general was anger at the idea.  That it was impossible for God to ask us to leave that which is good.  I pressed a little, in order to challenge, "well if God's ways are not ours, if God is wise, works with and instructs many outside the Church, if the Church is small in number, and thus unable to reach all or unable to reach certain people, it might be a possibility, no?" 

"No" was the response, "not possible". 

Bluebell brought this question out last week, as you might recall.  I thought it did illicit some fine discussion and figure it was an idea worth asking in the setting of EQP, perhaps drawing similar discussion that is found in Bluebell's thread.  But it was a no go.  At this point, the EQP stood up, which was odd.  While not looking at me, and a clear really upset look on his face, he plead, "we need to make sure, everything that we do in here is faith promoting.  We can't let the devil creep in. "  His voice cracked a little as if tears were about to come.  I asked he bear with me a little.  I couldn't really imagine how the ideas presented in class were not faith promoting, necessarily, but were for us to consider what is happening in our lives.  If, say, the Church had used fear, manipulatively, that's a shame.  But we ought to move forward, learning from our experience.  I followed his up by saying God is over all.  That if he loves a member of the church, he loves another outside the Church.  That if he has guidance, direction and comfort reserved for a member, he has it for someone outside the Church.  I commented that the Church is large, in a sense, but also very small in another sense.  That the vast majority of humans, of God's children, have no affiliation or concern about the Church and it's teachings, at least the unique ones. 

Anyway, I think my explanation was kind of laughed at.  The general response from the quorum was clear to me, they did  not want me there, and certainly not teaching.  Somehow that feeling hit me strong right in the middle of the lesson--I'm much better off not attending EQ.  I felt it was an over-reaction, of course.  I still don't really understand what upset everyone.  We ended early.  I found my children and went to find me wife, we had plans Sunday afternoon and were going to get going soon after Church.  My wife knew I had the lesson for EQ and knew I had some nerves about it.  I guess in her talking to people and running around she happened to walk past a slightly open door, but heard my name mentioned a couple of times as she passed.  So she stopped a moment to learn that it was the EQP and a counselor who were upset by the lesson (before she knew what had happened from me).  She heard the counselor exclaim that "he carries the spirit of the devil with him".  I guess the conclusion was, they needed me to not participate, talk and certainly not be asked to teach again.  She walked away, upset, I guess, and wanting to confront them, which wouldn't have been good for them. 

Ironically it seems they were fearful of, admittedly, simple ideas that may challenge their comfortable place. 

I guess all I can do is plant seeds. 

[bluebell]

You said that you don't really understand what upset everyone.  If you try to look at the lesson from their perspective maybe that will help you to understand your quorum better.  Better understanding usually can't hurt.  

You don't feel the same way that they do about the church, so it's probably hard for you to understand them from that angle, but maybe imagine the lesson from their perspective by replacing the church with your spouse (or something else that you have a great love and loyalty for, despite her/its problems).  

Think about someone who was trying to get you to see your wife, for example, for a more critical perspective and how you would feel about them, even if they had very good intentions.  Think about how you would feel about someone who wanted to spend 45 minutes with you focusing on the weaknesses of your wife (because they felt it would ultimately help you) or getting you to consider that your relationship with her might not be everything you thought it was and that maybe someday God might want you to leave her.  Etc.

Maybe their reactions were not as much out of fear as you are interpreting them to be.

Just some thoughts.  Sounds like it was a rough Sunday and I'm sorry it went the way it did.  

 

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I still don't really understand what upset everyone. 

People come to church to feel the Spirit, to be spiritually fed.  From what you've described, perhaps unintentionally, you seemed to be doing the opposite.  You were taking food off of the spiritual banquet table.  You started your lesson off, not by finding common ground, but by taking them someplace they said they'd never go.  I wonder if that didn't set up a barrier between you and the class for the rest of the time.

 

[pogi]

Plant seeds of what exactly?

You certainly aren't afraid to shake things up, I'll give you that!

Certainly you can see why these brethren might react that way?  Certainly you can understand why they didn't feel the spirit from your lesson - that wasn't really your intent was it?  Certainly you didn't expect them to welcome your critical remarks of the Church and the apostle of the Lord (basically calling him a hypocrite) with open arms did you?

Elders quorum is not MDDB.

 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said that you don't really understand what upset everyone.  If you try to look at the lesson from their perspective maybe that will help you to understand your quorum better.  Better understanding usually can't hurt.  

You don't feel the same way that they do about the church, so it's probably hard for you to understand them from that angle, but maybe imagine the lesson from their perspective by replacing the church with your spouse (or something else that you have a great love and loyalty for, despite her/its problems).  

Think about someone who was trying to get you to see your wife, for example, for a more critical perspective and how you would feel about them, even if they had very good intentions.  Think about how you would feel about someone who wanted to spend 45 minutes with you focusing on the weaknesses of your wife (because they felt it would ultimately help you) or getting you to consider that your relationship with her might not be everything you thought it was and that maybe someday God might want you to leave her.  Etc.

Maybe their reactions were not as much out of fear as you are interpreting them to be.

Just some thoughts.  Sounds like it was a rough Sunday and I'm sorry it went the way it did.  

 

Well wait a second.  What makes you think there was anything in this that resembles spending 45 minutes focusing on the weaknesses of my wife?  That's a pretty terrible analogy in my mind, and seems to miss the whole point. 

I think it's a scary thought for them to consider that the church has used the tactics of fear on them.  That it's a scary thought to think they will leave the Church.  It is for me.  And I suppose fear draws out upset feelings in most cases.  So in that way, I understand.  I guess, while I expected some admitted fears, or some concern about the discussion, what really threw me off was the level of anger that came out.  I still don't understand that. 

I did, before the lesson and during, tried to consider it from their perspective.  I'm not doing the whole lesson justice with this summary, I hope you realize. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

People come to church to feel the Spirit, to be spiritually fed.  From what you've described, perhaps unintentionally, you seemed to be doing the opposite.  You were taking food off of the spiritual banquet table.  You started your lesson off, not by finding common ground, but by taking them someplace they said they'd never go.  I wonder if that didn't set up a barrier between you and the class for the rest of the time.

 

yeah...if so, then as I said, it's pretty clear I can't really relate and most likely don't belong.  Which is fine.  Not much I can do about that, I suppose. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

Plant seeds of what exactly?

You certainly aren't afraid to shake things up, I'll give you that!

Certainly you can see why these brethren might react that way?  Certainly you can understand why they didn't feel the spirit from your lesson - that wasn't really your intent was it?  Certainly you didn't expect them to welcome your critical remarks of the Church and the apostle of the Lord (basically calling him a hypocrite) with open arms did you?

Elders quorum is not MDDB.

 

I don't expect anyone hear to just agree with me.  I certainly sought the Spirit and tried my best to bring it around to that.  This is but a summary. 

I can certainly see how tapping into fears will upset.  I suppose I just expected them to be able to handle it a little better.  Kind of sad we're stuck in a place where we can't really speak openly about what is happening in our lives. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't expect anyone hear to just agree with me.  I certainly sought the Spirit and tried my best to bring it around to that.  This is but a summary. 

I can certainly see how tapping into fears will upset.  I suppose I just expected them to be able to handle it a little better.  Kind of sad we're stuck in a place where we can't really speak openly about what is happening in our lives. 

I would imagine there were some there who did appreciate your lesson, Stem.  I've found there are many who just are afraid to speak up and just sit in silence.  Many of them are the same ones who have come to my Bishop with doubts and questions or who are struggling to continue coming.  Your lesson may have helped someone in that position and you were guided by the spirit to help them.

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

yeah...if so, then as I said, it's pretty clear I can't really relate and most likely don't belong.  Which is fine.  Not much I can do about that, I suppose. 

But, to stay with the metaphor, a person who is starving spiritually shouldn't leave the banquet table just because they don't fit in with the other diners. 

My advice would be to take every good thing you have to elders quorum, take the good things that are given to you there, and build.  No one is a perfect fit.  No one is the ideal.  No one is keeping the commandments perfectly.  Everyone is learning and growing. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would imagine there were some there who did appreciate your lesson, Stem.  I've found there are many who just are afraid to speak up and just sit in silence.  Many of them are the same ones who have come to my Bishop with doubts and questions or who are struggling to continue coming.  Your lesson may have helped someone in that position and you were guided by the spirit to help them.

Thank you.  I don't like the idea that I had no dealings with the Spirit, as some have pointed out here.  I really sought what might be the best way to go about this, through prayer and all that.  I think I was directed in part--realizing my own weakness got in the way too. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

My advice would be to take every good thing you have to elders quorum, take the good things that are given to you there, and build. 

That's what I was doing. 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well wait a second.  What makes you think there was anything in this that resembles spending 45 minutes focusing on the weaknesses of my wife?  That's a pretty terrible analogy in my mind, and seems to miss the whole point. 

I think it's a scary thought for them to consider that the church has used the tactics of fear on them.  That it's a scary thought to think they will leave the Church.  It is for me.  And I suppose fear draws out upset feelings in most cases.  So in that way, I understand.  I guess, while I expected some admitted fears, or some concern about the discussion, what really threw me off was the level of anger that came out.  I still don't understand that. 

I did, before the lesson and during, tried to consider it from their perspective.  I'm not doing the whole lesson justice with this summary, I hope you realize. 

My post wasn't about doing what seems reasonable 'in your mind.'  It was about getting into the minds of those in your quorum.   From their perspective, did they feel like your lesson was focusing on the weaknesses of the church and the chance that God might want them to leave?  From their reactions, it seems like that might have been how they were seeing it, doesn't it?

In your mind, your lesson was perfectly acceptable.  In their mind, it wasn't.  (I wasn't there and have no opinion on it.)  You guys are seeing things very differently.  You said you didn't understand why and I was just offering a suggesting on one way that might help you understand them better.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't expect anyone hear to just agree with me.  I certainly sought the Spirit and tried my best to bring it around to that.  This is but a summary. 

I can certainly see how tapping into fears will upset.  I suppose I just expected them to be able to handle it a little better.  Kind of sad we're stuck in a place where we can't really speak openly about what is happening in our lives. 

I can respect if you sought the Spirit, I guess your summary overlooked that part. 

I don't think that you really tapped into any fears.  I think people were more upset (from what little you have shared) because they felt like instead of teaching the spirit of the lesson (which was your assignment), you were calling the lesson giver (Pres. Uchtdorf, and the church of which these brethren love and belong) a hypocrite.  From your summary it feels like finger pointing rather than an edifying and inspirational message.  Finger pointing is rarely motivational, many people probably do not share your perspective and will predictably become defensive.  If your goal is to inspire and change perspectives, then you should probably work on not putting other people in a defensive position.  You could have given the same message without doing that.  Your lesson would have been much more accepted and better received.  It's all about delivery.

You really have two options.  You could 1) blame the brethren in your Elder's Quorum for being closed minded, overly sensitive, blind, and/or brain washed, or you could 2) try to consider some introspection and how to improve your approach and delivery without eliciting defensiveness.  Their reaction was predictable.  You will be much more effective that way (if that is what you want).  There is more than one way to skin a cat 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I guess all I can do is plant seeds. 

I think if you were to do Elder Uchtdorf’s talk justice, you would have focused on the theme to “contemplate and consider the extent to which we use fear to motivate others—including ourselves. The second is to suggest a better way [to motivate].”

But instead you facilitated an exercise in contemplating a scenario where the Church is false—a manipulation (projection?) of fear in its own right. Then you explain how you think the Church manipulates your fears. And then used your EQP for a negative thought experiment. You failed to do some research to see how implicit product messages affect us subconsciously so we do not recognize them—until we analyze the message (study, ponder, pray – Sunday School answers). You invited the class to do nothing the least bit introspective to apply the conference message to themselves. You never got to the better way, charity. No wonder it was such a yucky experience for all involved. You made it about you!

Provocation and Teaching in the Savior's Way are two entirely different approaches. I suggest you get the training.

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My post wasn't about doing what seems reasonable 'in your mind.'  It was about getting into the minds of those in your quorum.   From their perspective, did they feel like your lesson was focusing on the weaknesses of the church and the chance that God might want them to leave?  From their reactions, it seems like that might have been how they were seeing it, doesn't it?

 

I don't know that that was their concern.  It was more about, at least as expressed by them, fear of talking about that which is not faith promoting.  What that meant im not sure, because I'd maintain the discussion or possible discussion was not faith destroying..  

Quote

In your mind, your lesson was perfectly acceptable.

I think it should be acceptable to talk about the welfare of our souls.  I didn't necessarily think the quorum members would think it's acceptable.

Quote

 In their mind, it wasn't.  (I wasn't there and have no opinion on it.)  You guys are seeing things very differently.  You said you didn't understand why and I was just offering a suggesting on one way that might help you understand them better.

I clarified the upsetness I didn't understand was the anger.  I get that they were uncomfortable or fearful but didn't expect it to go beyond that.  Anyway still wondering about the question I posed previously.  But oh well 

Edited August 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can respect if you sought the Spirit, I guess your summary overlooked that part. 

I don't think that you really tapped into any fears.  

Thats what was expressed.

Quote

I think people were more upset (from what little you have shared) because they felt like instead of teaching the spirit of the lesson (which was your assignment), you were calling the lesson giver (Pres. Uchtdorf, and the church of which these brethren love and belong) a hypocrite.  

No.  I didn't at all.  In fact the opposite.  

Quote

From your summary it feels like finger pointing rather than an edifying and inspirational message.  Finger pointing is rarely motivational, many people probably do not share your perspective and will predictably become defensive.  If your goal is to inspire and change perspectives, then you should probably work on not putting other people in a defensive position.  You could have given the same message without doing that.  Your lesson would have been much more accepted and better received.  It's all about delivery.

You really have two options.  You could 1) blame the brethren in your Elder's Quorum for being closed minded, overly sensitive, blind, and/or brain washed, or you could 2) try to consider some introspection and how to improve your approach and delivery without eliciting defensiveness.  Their reaction was predictable.  You will be much more effective that way (if that is what you want).  There is more than one way to skin a cat 

Yeah there's history that complicates for sure.  I'm not above thinking I didn't play some part in what went wrong.  

Edited August 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think if you were to do Elder Uchtdorf’s talk justice, you would have focused on the theme to “contemplate and consider the extent to which we use fear to motivate others—including ourselves. The second is to suggest a better way [to motivate].”

 

That was was the focus.  I brought it to that conclusion.

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But instead you facilitated an exercise in contemplating a scenario where the Church is false—a manipulation (projection?) of fear in its own right. Then you explain how you think the Church manipulates your fears. And then used your EQP for a negative thought experiment. You failed to do some research to see how implicit product messages affect us subconsciously so we do not recognize them—until we analyze the message (study, ponder, pray – Sunday School answers). You invited the class to do nothing the least bit introspective to apply the conference message to themselves. You never got to the better way, charity. No wonder it was such a yucky experience for all involved. You made it about you!

Not at all.  I think you've misunderstood

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Provocation and Teaching in the Savior's Way are two entirely different approaches. I suggest you get the training.

Interesting absolute and dichotomy.  Did the savior ever have to resort to provocation?  

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

I don't know that that was their concern.  It was more about, at least as expressed by them, fear of talking about that which is not faith promoting.  What that meant im not sure, because I'd maintain the discussion or possible discussion was not faith destroying..  

I think it should be acceptable to talk about the welfare of our souls.  I didn't necessarily think the quorum members would think it's acceptable.

I clarified the upsetness I didn't understand was the anger.  I get that they were uncomfortable or fearful but didn't expect it to go beyond that.  Anyway still wondering about the question I posed previously.  But oh well 

Do you really think that if you ask them "is it acceptable to talk about the welfare of our souls?' that they would say no?

It was the anger part that led me to think that they might be coming at the topic the way a husband would come at it if they thought someone was attempting to come between them and their loyalty for a much loved wife.

I must have missed it, what question did you post previously?

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you really think that if you ask them "is it acceptable to talk about the welfare of our souls?' that they would say no?

Of course, if presented as the welfare of our souls includes discussing the fears we feel as it relates to Church. 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was the anger part that led me to think that they might be coming at the topic the way a husband would come at it if they thought someone was attempting to come between them and their loyalty for a much loved wife.

Wow.  Interesting.  Because anger you think they saw this like 45 minutes of complaining about the weaknesses of their wives?  It feels like an extreme stretch since there are far more things that might make them angry.  I'm still curious what drew your mind there, how it connected.  If it was simply that they expressed anger, then ok.

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I must have missed it, what question did you post previously?

You answered it just now by expressing why your mind created the analogy of talking for 45 minutes about the weaknesses of their wives.  I guess since you went there, it's possible they did too.  I simply can't relate to that though.  I simply can't see a connection. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course, if presented as the welfare of our souls includes discussing the fears we feel as it relates to Church. 

It's probable (given their reaction to the lesson) that they don't believe that discussing fear as it relates to the church is necessary when talking about the welfare of their souls.   If that's true, then it's not that they don't believe in the importance of discussing the welfare of souls, but rather, they disagree with you about what that should entail.  

Quote

Wow.  Interesting.  Because anger you think they saw this like 45 minutes of complaining about the weaknesses of their wives?  It feels like an extreme stretch since there are far more things that might make them angry.  I'm still curious what drew your mind there, how it connected.  If it was simply that they expressed anger, then ok.

Yes, i think their reactions to the lesson, especially their anger, show that they felt you were attacking the church in some way, similar to how a husband get's angry if he feels like someone is attacking his wife who he is fiercely loyal to.  Even though the husband would know that this wife had weaknesses, maybe some significant ones, he would still likely react with anger to someone else pointing them out to him if he did not trust the intentions of the person doing it.

Quote

I simply can't relate to that though.  I simply can't see a connection. 

That's probably part of the problem, you and the other quorum members don't understand each other.   Couple that with the history that you guys have, and it would be very hard--i would say impossible--for you to give a lesson on anything that was the least bit controversial in any way and not have to it turn out badly.  

Not because you were doing anything wrong but because you have a perspective that your quorum members obviously don't understand, and they seem to have perspectives that you have said you don't understand, and they already don't trust your intentions.

It's a bit of a recipe for disaster, even with no one doing anything blameworthy.  

 

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That was was the focus.  I brought it to that conclusion.

Not at all.  I think you've misunderstood

Interesting absolute and dichotomy.  Did the savior ever have to resort to provocation?  

I didn't see that focus or conclusion in your description of how things played out. But if you take the course, you will see what Teaching in the Savior's Way entails.

How did the Savior teach from sources He was not a fan of? How did He fear getting in front of them to teach? How did He ask people to think about Him or His Father as being unreliable? How did he share that His Father betrayed him, or taught Him through fear?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's probable (given their reaction to the lesson) that they don't believe that discussing fear as it relates to the church is necessary when talking about the welfare of their souls.   If that's true, then it's not that they don't believe in the importance of discussing the welfare of souls, but rather, they disagree with you about what that should entail.  

It seems to go without saying when I say welfare of our souls I mean in it the context for which I'm using it.  In this case, obviously, the welfare of our souls is precisely fears we have regarding Church, which happens to coincide with our souls.  If someone feels it reasonable that the welfare of our souls doesn't include that, be my guest, but I'd say doing so is untenable.  I could go into more detail about what we talked about, but it included this line of reasoning early on.  I think what I've expressed has been about 8 minutes of the 45 (at least). 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, i think their reactions to the lesson, especially their anger, show that they felt you were attacking the church in some way, similar to how a husband get's angry if he feels like someone is attacking his wife who he is fiercely loyal to.  Even though the husband would know that this wife had weaknesses, maybe some significant ones, he would still likely react with anger to someone else pointing them out to him if he did not trust the intentions of the person doing it.

 

If that's a connection they drew, then I guess I'm feeling even better about going there.  That is a surprising line of reasoning to me.  Probably something that should be addressed with them. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

That's probably part of the problem, you and the other quorum members don't understand each other.   Couple that with the history that you guys have, and it would be very hard--i would say impossible--for you to give a lesson on anything that was the least bit controversial in any way and not have to it turn out badly.  

Wow...that's discouraging.  I guess I don't have a place.   I think in a lot of ways we can understand each other if we tried.  I've thought it somewhat interesting how the responses have come in this thread.  I think it's true in some ways I can't get where they are coming from.  That's the same for all of us, though.  We simply don't do well being able to walk in others shoes and fully grasp the perspective of another.  I thought that went without saying too.  We get close and usually accept that's good enough. In truth I've given a number of lessons with tons of controversy that I don't think turned out badly--at least not for all involved.  So I think you are overstating this.  Fine again.  I take it as your opinion. 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not because you were doing anything wrong but because you have a perspective that your quorum members obviously don't understand, and they seem to have perspectives that you have said you don't understand, and they already don't trust your intentions.

It's a bit of a recipe for disaster, even with no one doing anything blameworthy.  

 

I think you have some interesting ideas that probably apply in some ways.  After speaking with my wife she was like, "it's interesting that they think you just don't get it.  That you are the one who is the problem--that is ignorant, that is unfaithful...and all that.  In truth we all don't quite get it.  None of us completely understands each other.  Too bad it continues to be seen of both of us in the ward, that we are the terrible ones who need to be forced out.  There still needs to be more openness in Church.  This example illustrates the problem quite well."

I agree.  We can avoid disaster if all sides try and understand.  I don't think that happens in the Church well, which is too bad.  The Church might be the best place for us to actually engage each other. 

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't expect anyone hear to just agree with me.  I certainly sought the Spirit and tried my best to bring it around to that. ...

Then kudos for doing your best.

Had i been in your shoes, i might have more briefly mentioned the good shepherd opting to leave the 99 to find the one, and our desire to be/become more like Christ. But would then leave that there in the context of finding our ministry, and quickly pivot back the lesson to what the 99 there came hoping to receive. 

I'd say well done, considering you did the best then with how you felt/believed at that juncture. Kudos for accepting the assignment. 

I would suggest as step 2 to invite your quorum leader over to explain briefly how he might have preferred things to have gone. Might be enlightening on all sides, and might be a way to mend fences.

Thoughts?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I didn't see that focus or conclusion in your description of how things played out. But if you take the course, you will see what Teaching in the Savior's Way entails.

You didn't see a lot of what happened.  I didn't intend to discuss it all.  But since people responded in the ready to condemn me I thought it wise to point out, you simply weren't there and didn't see how it played out. 

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How did the Savior teach from sources He was not a fan of?

huh?  What do you mean?  Do you have a list of all sources He used?  Or are you just alluding to perhaps quotes from other passages attributed to him in the gospels? 

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How did He fear getting in front of them to teach?

beats me.  How did He? 

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How did He ask people to think about Him or His Father as being unreliable?

He what? 

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How did he share that His Father betrayed him, or taught Him through fear?

With these questions I get the feeling we're getting nowhere on the road to understanding each other.  I have no clue what you are driving at.  These all seem like nonsensical questions. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, hagoth7 said:

Then kudos for doing your best.

Had i been in your shoes, i might have more briefly mentioned the good shepherd opting to leave the 99 to find the one, and our desire to be/become more like Christ. But would then leave that there in the context of finding our ministry, and quickly pivot back the lesson to what the 99 there came hoping to receive. 

I'd say well done, considering you did the best then with how you felt/believed at that juncture. Kudos for accepting the assignment. 

I would suggest as step 2 to invite your quorum leader over to explain briefly how he might have preferred things to have gone. Might be enlightening on all sides, and might be a way to mend fences.

Thoughts?

Nah...>It's a good set of thoughts here.  I'll report back.