Casting out fear again, but planting seeds for good

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thats what was expressed.

You said, "Ironically it seems they were fearful of, admittedly, simple ideas that may challenge their comfortable place."  Was that fear actually expressed, or was it inferred by you?  Did someone actually say "I am afraid" or " your ideas are causing me to feel fear"?  To me it sounds like your hypothetical situations were created in an attempt to elicit fear in order to show that the church uses fear to manipulate, but it doesn't sound like anyone took the bate, according to your summary.  I don't see how anything you said would cause anyone to feel fear, but their reaction of feeling terribly uncomfortable and upset is entirely predictable.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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

I truly don't understand how you can say that.  I certainly interpreted your message that way, so it would not surprise me at all if others did too.  It clearly sounds like you were making the church, or Pres Uchtdorf, out to be a hypocrite for teaching against the use of fear, while being (according to you) the greatest offender of fear manipulation on earth. That's going to go over real well in EQ .     Ok, you didn't use the word "hypocrite", you used the words "odd" and "ironic", but the message is the same. 

Here is what you said (according to you):

Quote

 

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.

 But it also might be that the Church has played on a fears and sad to say, Pres Uchtdorf called such a tactic manipulation. 

 

In other words, a hypocrite:  "A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". 

You see, when someone feels attacked, or feels like their faith is being attacked, that is where the defense mechanism comes in.  It is predictable human nature.  You could argue that they shouldn't react that way, but it would be to your benefit to at least understand and anticipate the reaction.   They are going to get angry and perceive you as an enemy of the church (whether that is true or not).  Is that what you want?  If not, you have to try a new approach. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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). 

And they probably feel that your position is untenable (given your explanation of how they reacted, which is all i'm basing this on).  Like i said, you guys seem to have perspectives that are not understood by the other (and that neither side really want to consider as being possibly valid).  If that's true, then it explains why the lesson seemed to go so south.

Quote

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. 

You definitely shouldn't be the one doing the addressing, if it is something they need to consider.

Quote

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. 

Some people are much better at seeing another's perspective than others, so it is possible to do and do it well.  But I think because most of us don't want to consider the possibility that the other perspective is valid and maybe even more valid than our own, we don't try very hard to do it well most of the time. 

Quote

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."

Was your wife talking about the members of your quorum or people in this thread?

Quote

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. 

I think we can better avoid these kinds of disasters if we play to the strengths of the people we are trying to teach for a while, before confronting them with their weaknesses.  

For example, your exact same lesson might have gone over much better if they trusted your intentions.  Giving a handful of lessons on things that you and the quorum see eye to eye on, before doing a controversial topic, might have given them the chance to trust your intentions more and cause less problems with misunderstanding what you were trying to accomplish in this lesson.  Their unfair views of you are a weakness of some of your quorum members.  Making it easier for them to move past that weakness might be an option to help a lesson go better next time.

You know how JS said that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care?  Well, i think it's also true that believing members don't want to hear what you think is wrong with the church until they are absolutely convinced that you love the doctrines and institution as much as they do.  I think that no one should attempt to teach anything controversial in church unless that second half of the sentence has first been accomplished.  In my experience it never goes well.

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

You said, "Ironically it seems they were fearful of, admittedly, simple ideas that may challenge their comfortable place."  Was that fear actually expressed, or was it inferred by you?  Did someone actually say "I am afraid" or " your ideas are causing me to feel fear"?  To me it sounds like your hypothetical situations were created in an attempt to elicit fear in order to show that the church uses fear to manipulate, but it doesn't sound like anyone took the bate, according to your summary.  I don't see how anything you said would cause anyone to feel fear, but their reaction of feeling terribly uncomfortable and upset is entirely predictable.

Yeah...you're not getting the whole picture and I chose to share as much as I did for a reason.  I've lost interest in this effort to paint it as something it was not.  You are free to take it or leave it. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I truly don't understand how you can say that.  I certainly interpreted your message that way, so it would not surprise me at all if others did too.  It clearly sounds like you were making the church, or Pres Uchtdorf, out to be a hypocrite for teaching against the use of fear, while being (according to you) the greatest offender of fear manipulation on earth. That's going to go over real well in EQ .     Ok, you didn't use the word "hypocrite", you used the words "odd" and "ironic", but the message is the same. 

Well that's not what happened.  I'm not sure where you get that from, and again am not interested to find out now. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here is what you said (according to you):

Those weren't quotations.  And the thoughts I shared carried context that you weren't exactly completely privy to. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, a hypocrite:  "A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". 

if we're going to get all nit picky, though, then I would add, I do think we all are hypocritical at times.  That's the nature of our mortal selves.  We tend to do it.  I don't give a pass to anyone on that.  But I don't use the term for people, typically. 

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

You see, when someone feels attacked, or feels like their faith is being attacked, that is where the defense mechanism comes in.  It is predictable human nature.  You could argue that we should react that way, but it would be to your benefit to at least understand and anticipate the reaction.   They are going to get angry and perceive you as an enemy of the church (whether that is true or not).  Is that what you want?  If not, you have to try a new approach. 

I did understand and anticipate a reaction of defensiveness.  It's the anger that through me for a loop.  I'm not concerned about how they perceive me.  But I maintain the Church is better off to support an environment where we are free to share the welfare of our souls.  It's too bad we don't have such a place. 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And they probably feel that your position is untenable (given your explanation of how they reacted, which is all i'm basing this on).

Yes.  I already said that. 

Quote

 Like i said, you guys seem to have perspectives that are not understood by the other (and that neither side really want to consider as being possibly valid).  If that's true, then it explains why the lesson seemed to go so south.

You definitely shouldn't be the one doing the addressing, if it is something they need to consider.

These absolutely statements are troubling to me.  I doubt you know this at all.  It's an interesting guess though. 

Quote

Some people are much better at seeing another's perspective than others, so it is possible to do and do it well. 

 

I don't know about this absolute statement either.  I think some people can do it better for certain people than others.  But others might be better in the case of even others. 

Quote

But I think because most of us don't want to consider the possibility that the other perspective is valid and maybe even more valid than our own, we don't try very hard to do it well most of the time. 

It's an interesting statement if applied to the Church's perspective and this topic, for sure. 

Quote

Was your wife talking about the members of your quorum or people in this thread?

I think we can better avoid these kinds of disasters if we play to the strengths of the people we are trying to teach for a while, before confronting them with their weaknesses.  

For example, your exact same lesson might have gone over much better if they trusted your intentions.  Giving a handful of lessons on things that you and the quorum see eye to eye on, before doing a controversial topic, might have given them the chance to trust your intentions more and cause less problems with misunderstanding what you were trying to accomplish in this lesson.  Their unfair views of you are a weakness of some of your quorum members.  Making it easier for them to move past that weakness might be an option to help a lesson go better next time.

Anything is possible.  WE'd never know.   

Quote

You know how JS said that people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care?  Well, i think it's also true that believing members don't want to hear what you think is wrong with the church until they are absolutely convinced that you love the doctrines and institution as much as they do.  I think that no one should attempt to teach anything controversial in church unless that second half of the sentence has first been accomplished.  In my experience it never goes well.

 

That's pretty sad.  It seems to suggest members have too much fear of those who they perceive as not having the same amount of love as they for teachings and doctrine.  Being skeptical on this point of another seems ugly and unhealthy.  You seem to suggest it's a matter of fact that we must work with. 

But, my experience is certainly different than yours.  But I will add this isn't about going well and more about following the impressions that God might give someone. Which I honestly feel is far more important then binding each other up in weird arbitrary rules in order to play a game--which is what it seems like the suggestion here amounts to.

Edited August 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  I already said that. 

These absolutely statements are troubling to me.  I doubt you know this at all.  It's an interesting guess though. 

I don't know about this absolute statement either.  I think some people can do it better for certain people than others.  But others might be better in the case of even others. 

I'm not sure what 'absolutely' statements you are referring to.  I think I only made one in that whole section; the one where I said you definitely shouldn't be the one to do the confronting.  I said that because it seems obvious (given your description of the lesson you just gave) that you trying to confront your quorum on the issue would go down in flames.  

All my other statements are couched in language such as 'it seems,' 'probably,' and 'if that's true.'  Those phrases are specifically used to show that the statements are not absolutes.

Quote

It's an interesting statement if applied to the Church's perspective and this topic, for sure. 

I agree.  Most people only like to apply the statement to other people and not to themselves.  Just like how we are so good at outlining other people's flaws while not seeing our own or not seeing our own accurately even if we admit they are there.

Quote

Anything is possible.  WE'd never know.   

It would be easy enough to know if you are ever asked to teach again and followed the suggestions.

Quote

That's pretty sad.  It seems to suggest members have too much fear of those who they perceive as not having the same amount of love as they for teachings and doctrine.  Being skeptical on this point of another seems ugly and unhealthy.  You seem to suggest it's a matter of fact that we must work with. 

Being sad because people react differently than you think they should is a worthless emotion though.  People are how they are.  You either do what it takes to reach them, or you don't reach them.  It's kind of that simple.  If you really want to plant seeds, then you'll do what it takes to make the ground receptive.  

You know why a big brother thinks it's fine to make fun of his little brother, but won't let anyone else do it?  Because the big brother knows he loves his little brother and he knows his intention is not to cause harm, while the other people's intentions are unknown or bad.   If people believe you have good intentions towards the church, they will make more allowances for you than if they either don't know your intentions or believe they are negative.     

Quote

But, my experience is certainly different than yours.  But I will add this isn't about going well and more about following the impressions that God might give someone. Which I honestly feel is far more important then binding each other up in weird arbitrary rules in order to play a game--which is what it seems like the suggestion here amounts to.

Again, if you really want to be able to plant seeds, then it should be about lessons being well-received by members of the class.  

If a teacher knows something important for their pupils but is incapable of imparting it to them, then the teacher is worthless as a teacher.  Teachers have a responsibility to try to teach effectively.  That's not game playing or being bound by weird arbitrary rules.  It's understanding human nature, the strengths and weaknesses of their class, and how to work with all of it for the best outcome.

If you never plan on teaching again, or don't care if people react poorly (through no fault of your own), then none of this matters.  I'm offering suggestions from the perspective of you teaching these men again some day and wanting the lesson to go better than this last one.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah...you're not getting the whole picture and I chose to share as much as I did for a reason.

Then I guess my reaction shouldn't surprise you.  

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've lost interest in this effort to paint it as something it was not.  You are free to take it or leave it. 

All I can take is the context you have shared.  I am not attempting to paint it as something it was not.  You painted the picture.  You chose to include information, and leave information out.  As you said, I am "not getting the whole picture".  I am simply reacting to the image you created.  If you want me to react differently, perhaps you should include more information.  Go back and read your OP from my perspective of not knowing the whole story.  What do you expect?

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Those weren't quotations.  And the thoughts I shared carried context that you weren't exactly completely privy to.  

Then again, I guess my reaction shouldn't surprise you.

You tend to do this a lot on these boards.  You expect me to be a mind reader.  Perhaps when you interact with others, it would be to your benefit to consider the limited perspective of others.  It will help you out tremendously on these boards, and if your delivery in EQ is anything like these boards, it will help you out there too.

Edited August 29, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

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? 

beats me.  How did He? 

He what? 

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. 

I only see what you shared, and that is what I responded to. It has nothing to do with being “on the ready.”

You said you were not a fan of the lesson material. You said you were nervous about teaching it. You asked the class to consider the Church to be unreliable. You shared how the Church uses fear to manipulate you. You spoke of simple ideas challenging their comfortable place. My questions address each of those in terms of Teaching in the Savior’s Way, an approach that I’m suggesting would have contributed to a better experience all concerned.

I think you got that feeling last Sunday, too!

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what 'absolutely' statements you are referring to.  I think I only made one in that whole section; the one where I said you definitely shouldn't be the one to do the confronting.  I said that because it seems obvious (given your description of the lesson you just gave) that you trying to confront your quorum on the issue would go down in flames.  

All my other statements are couched in language such as 'it seems,' 'probably,' and 'if that's true.'  Those phrases are specifically used to show that the statements are not absolutes.

I agree.  Most people only like to apply the statement to other people and not to themselves.  Just like how we are so good at outlining other people's flaws while not seeing our own or not seeing our own accurately even if we admit they are there.

It would be easy enough to know if you are ever asked to teach again and followed the suggestions.

I don't know that my exact lesson as last time will be the one I get asked to teach, if asked again.  I don't think they'll ask again.  If I do get asked again, I'm not really in control of what the topic is.  I might not be given a lesson where we see eye to eye on.  I just don't know how we'd know.   But, ti's all behind us now, it appears. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Being sad because people react differently than you think they should is a worthless emotion though.  People are how they are.  You either do what it takes to reach them, or you don't reach them.  It's kind of that simple.  If you really want to plant seeds, then you'll do what it takes to make the ground receptive.  

I disagree with this type of absolute thought "you either do what it takes to reach them, or you don't reach them."  I don't know that it's that simple either.  If you try too hard to reach them you may lose meaning and purpose.  I think this is not simple. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You know why a big brother thinks it's fine to make fun of his little brother, but won't let anyone else do it?  Because the big brother knows he loves his little brother and he knows his intention is not to cause harm, while the other people's intentions are unknown or bad.   If people believe you have good intentions towards the church, they will make more allowances for you than if they either don't know your intentions or believe they are negative.  

I think you have the impression that they don't know me. That this was the first dealings with me, or something.  I assure you, your ideas are coming off as pretty ignorant with all these suppositions. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

   

Again, if you really want to be able to plant seeds, then it should be about lessons being well-received by members of the class.  

Easy to say, I suppose.  I don't know if this absolute statement works really well "if you want to plant seeds, then it should be about lessons being well-received by members...".  But I appreciate the thought.  I think it quite possible that what happened was the best for everyone involved.  It seems you have already concluded it was not, while giving me suggestions of what I should have done, or how to proceed.  I'm not so sure that's all that helpful. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If a teacher knows something important for their pupils but is incapable of imparting it to them, then the teacher is worthless as a teacher.  

I'm not so sure that absolute statement works either---"If a teacher knows something important...then the teacher is worthless...".  I think teachers who fail in one place of imparting important stuff may excel in another, and that teacher is not worthless at all.  Indeed, I'd wager many teachers who are great teachers struggle to impart some knowledge here or there. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Teachers have a responsibility to try to teach effectively.  That's not game playing or being bound by weird arbitrary rules.  It's understanding human nature, the strengths and weaknesses of their class, and how to work with all of it for the best outcome.

I disagree with these absolute statements as well, but I can appreciate, I think, the message you're trying to convey. 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you never plan on teaching again, or don't care if people react poorly (through no fault of your own), then none of this matters.  I'm offering suggestions from the perspective of you teaching these men again some day and wanting the lesson to go better than this last one.

Oh...I can assure you I'd know how to play the game if it was all about getting them to react normally.  I don't think I was seeking advice on this.  Just giving a story from which we can discuss the issues. 

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then I guess my reaction shouldn't surprise you.  

Of course it did not.  I suspected a few here would react with some level of condemnation. 

Quote

All I can take is the context you have shared.  I am not attempting to paint it as something it was not.  You painted the picture.  You chose to include information, and leave information out.  As you said, I am "not getting the whole picture".  I am simply reacting to the image you created.  If you want me to react differently, perhaps you should include more information.  Go back and read your OP from my perspective of not knowing the whole story.  What do you expect?

And I just wanted to talk about what I outlined. I wasn't interested in your judgments or whatever it was you offered. 

Quote

Then again, I guess my reaction shouldn't surprise you.

You tend to do this a lot on these boards.  You expect me to be a mind reader.  Perhaps when you interact with others, it would be to your benefit to consider the limited perspective of others.  It will help you out tremendously on these boards, and if your delivery in EQ is anything like these boards, it will help you out there too.

no I expect people to discuss without guessing on things the person is not talking about.  I have no idea why you are intent on painting a picture of what happened that is unrecognizable to me.  I said what I said.  You want to talk about how I did badly?  Be my guest.  But don't expect me to recognize something that you make up in order to tell me what I did wrong.   

Edited August 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I only see what you shared, and that is what I responded to. It has nothing to do with being “on the ready.”

 

You said you were not a fan of the lesson material. You said you were nervous about teaching it. You asked the class to consider the Church to be unreliable. You shared how the Church uses fear to manipulate you. You spoke of simple ideas challenging their comfortable place. My questions address each of those in terms of Teaching in the Savior’s Way, an approach that I’m suggesting would have contributed to a better experience all concerned.

 

I think you got that feeling last Sunday, too!

I'll leave you to read my last response to Pogi.  I think I'd come up with the same thoughts. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

no I expect people to discuss without guessing on things the person is not talking about. 

Nobody is guessing on what is not being shared.  We are only reacting to what HAS been shared, then you accuse us of making judgments without knowing the full context.  Again, I don't read minds.  If you want me to know the context in order to make a more fair judgement, then share it bro.  All I have to go on is what you have said.  Don't get mad at me for believing you.     

You set yourself up, then get mad at us for taking the bait.  This is nuts. 

This isn't working, peace out!

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nobody is guessing on what is not being shared.  We are only reacting to what HAS been shared, then you accuse us of making judgments without knowing the full context.  Again, I don't read minds.  If you want me to know the context in order to make a more fair judgement, then share it bro.  All I have to go on is what you have said.  Don't get mad at me for believing you.     

You set yourself up, then get mad at us for taking the bait.  This is nuts. 

This isn't working, peace out!

Well sorry for the confusion.  I may have over-reacted as it seemed you were offering comments based more on than what I said.  Sorry we were not syncing on this.  I am a bit of a nutjob--I can agree with that.  

Peace out to you. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree with this type of absolute thought "you either do what it takes to reach them, or you don't reach them."  I don't know that it's that simple either.  If you try too hard to reach them you may lose meaning and purpose.  I think this is not simple. 

I agree that you shouldn't do anything to reach them.  But most of the time it's possible to present the message that God wants us to present, while working with the weaknesses of the class so they are capable of receiving the message.

Quote

I think you have the impression that they don't know me. That this was the first dealings with me, or something.  I assure you, your ideas are coming off as pretty ignorant with all these suppositions. 

No, i realize they know you.  You've talked a lot on here about how much you feel like they don't want you in class or want you to be silent while you are in there and all the problems that you've had with your ward in the past.

Quote

Easy to say, I suppose.  I don't know if this absolute statement works really well "if you want to plant seeds, then it should be about lessons being well-received by members...".  But I appreciate the thought.  I think it quite possible that what happened was the best for everyone involved.  It seems you have already concluded it was not, while giving me suggestions of what I should have done, or how to proceed.  I'm not so sure that's all that helpful. 

I'm just going off of the OP.  If you believe that people being angry with you and thinking that you don't have the spirit is 'the best for everyone involved' then so be it.  It seemed reasonable to me to conclude, from the OP, that the lesson did not go the way you wanted it to.  If you say that it went the best it could have gone, then great!

Quote

I'm not so sure that absolute statement works either---"If a teacher knows something important...then the teacher is worthless...".  I think teachers who fail in one place of imparting important stuff may excel in another, and that teacher is not worthless at all.  Indeed, I'd wager many teachers who are great teachers struggle to impart some knowledge here or there.

Just take the statement as it's written.  If a teacher is able to teach, then they serve the purpose for which they were called.  If they are not able to teach, then they fail to serve the purpose for which they were called.  I really wasn't getting any more deep than that.

Quote

Oh...I can assure you I'd know how to play the game if it was all about getting them to react normally.  I don't think I was seeking advice on this. 

I don't really consider trying to reach students as 'playing a game.'  I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining myself but i'm basically just trying to say what it says in the "Teaching the Savior's way" lesson manual that we are all supposed to be going through this year-

“A gospel teacher, like the Master we serve, will concentrate entirely on those being taught,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “His or her total concentration will be on the needs of the sheep—the good of the students."

The gospel is for everyone, but no two people are exactly alike. Look for ways to understand the backgrounds, interests, talents, and needs of the people you teach. Ask questions, listen carefully, and observe what learners say and do in different situations."

"When you prepare, let your understanding of the people you teach guide your plans."

Quote

Just giving a story from which we can discuss the issues. 

What issues did you want to discuss?  I guess they weren't obvious to me from the OP.

[rpn]

May I suggest you speak (email) directly with the two who were talking, "The conversation that was overheard really proves the point of the lesson.  You want to expel someone who doesn't think like you think they ought to act/think.  You are afraid of them?   I was trying to point out that operating from a fear mindset is not how we are supposed to be.   If we have the truth, we need not be afraid to explore things we don't understand.   If you want to suggest ways you want me to teach a lesson, I'm happy to hear them.   But to call people out as being Satanic because they teach/think or act different than you do seems pretty anthetical to what we are supposed to do/be as disciples of Christ.  I'm sorry that at least for you two, I wasn't able to convey, what I hoped to."

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'll leave you to read my last response to Pogi.  I think I'd come up with the same thoughts. 

I don't understand it.

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, rpn said:

May I suggest you speak (email) directly with the two who were talking, "The conversation that was overheard really proves the point of the lesson.  You want to expel someone who doesn't think like you think they ought to act/think.  You are afraid of them?   I was trying to point out that operating from a fear mindset is not how we are supposed to be.   If we have the truth, we need not be afraid to explore things we don't understand.   If you want to suggest ways you want me to teach a lesson, I'm happy to hear them.   But to call people out as being Satanic because they teach/think or act different than you do seems pretty anthetical to what we are supposed to do/be as disciples of Christ.  I'm sorry that at least for you two, I wasn't able to convey, what I hoped to."

Or, 

Quote

Matt 5:21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be indanger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that you shouldn't do anything to reach them.  But most of the time it's possible to present the message that God wants us to present, while working with the weaknesses of the class so they are capable of receiving the message.

No, i realize they know you.  You've talked a lot on here about how much you feel like they don't want you in class or want you to be silent while you are in there and all the problems that you've had with your ward in the past.

I'm just going off of the OP.  If you believe that people being angry with you and thinking that you don't have the spirit is 'the best for everyone involved' then so be it.  It seemed reasonable to me to conclude, from the OP, that the lesson did not go the way you wanted it to.  If you say that it went the best it could have gone, then great!

Just take the statement as it's written.  If a teacher is able to teach, then they serve the purpose for which they were called.  If they are not able to teach, then they fail to serve the purpose for which they were called.  I really wasn't getting any more deep than that.

I don't really consider trying to reach students as 'playing a game.'  I'm probably doing a bad job of explaining myself but i'm basically just trying to say what it says in the "Teaching the Savior's way" lesson manual that we are all supposed to be going through this year-

“A gospel teacher, like the Master we serve, will concentrate entirely on those being taught,” said Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “His or her total concentration will be on the needs of the sheep—the good of the students."

The gospel is for everyone, but no two people are exactly alike. Look for ways to understand the backgrounds, interests, talents, and needs of the people you teach. Ask questions, listen carefully, and observe what learners say and do in different situations."

"When you prepare, let your understanding of the people you teach guide your plans."

What issues did you want to discuss?  I guess they weren't obvious to me from the OP.

I did leave it a bit open, but I had an intended topic which was the idea that the Church has used fear tactics and it ironically was evident in the class where this topic was discussed.  But I can't fault you for taking the OP as a plea for advice. 

I don't think the lesson went well, in some ways quite unexpectedly.  But in the end, it doesn't mean the way I presented it, the questions brought weren't what was needed.  I still think they were.  and thus, it came down to, instead of resolve or much thoughtful discussion, a task of planting seeds.  See ya.  On most of this I'll give you the last word. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

May I suggest you speak (email) directly with the two who were talking, "The conversation that was overheard really proves the point of the lesson.  You want to expel someone who doesn't think like you think they ought to act/think.  You are afraid of them?   I was trying to point out that operating from a fear mindset is not how we are supposed to be.   If we have the truth, we need not be afraid to explore things we don't understand.   If you want to suggest ways you want me to teach a lesson, I'm happy to hear them.   But to call people out as being Satanic because they teach/think or act different than you do seems pretty anthetical to what we are supposed to do/be as disciples of Christ.  I'm sorry that at least for you two, I wasn't able to convey, what I hoped to."

I intend to do something like this.  Thanks. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Perhaps you could have chosen a hypothetical person for your example rather than the person sitting in the room.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I will note that I wasn't there. But I will give my response with reasons as to why and what I could see may have happened in the EQ and why it may have gotten defensive. 

Quote

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. 

I probably would have stared blankly and shrugged. It would assume a level of fatalism or inevitability to each step in this scenario that I simply don't believe in. It's not that my testimony is bullet proof, these just don't feel relatable to my experiences. So it would have led to a shrug. 

Quote

 

We read this paragraph:

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." 

 

Also would have been blank. Because it's on the spot and I've trained myself to blank out hard on any and every ad that gets played while watching shows. After a minute or two I thought of a political ad as well as any ads comparing products or possibly the ads that indicate a dull life until whatever product came into their lives. I can't relate to fears tying to church. Again, not relatable for me. I'm not uber argumentative in church, so I would have probably started to check out. 

Quote

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. "

Confused and I may have raised my hand and said. "The church or the people? I see the church work actively not to do this, but as people we can all fall into fear and teach from that more."

Quote

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. 

At this I wouldn't know where to start. My thought to the fear question is that most of my fears have very little to do with the church. At this time the assumptions would probably become overwhelming. These statements would feel loaded. 

Quote

 

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". 

 

Korihor would probably flash through my head as the answer to who you're describing. There's no context, it's extreme, and it reads inflammatory and either-or in assumption. Presentation matters, I think the way that BB presented her OP is a little different to what you're giving in this context and that difference is key. Particularly if I'm wanting to poke at LDS culture and assumptions. I've done it before. More than once. I've given blunt firesides on sex that included pictures of anatomically correct genitalia and sex jokes, discussed our cultural mental expectations that can trip us up spiritually, pushed at women's roles and gender stereotypes,  and more. Far from becoming defensive, people tend to thank me. But I'm also very very very careful with it. Anyone can become defensive to criticism or simple critiques. Particularly if you don't read your audience and where they're at well. I work to stay away from all or nothing or extreme statements when doing so. I rope myself into it. It's not "the church" but "we." I give examples of my own failures or short-comings as examples to what I critique and push at. I ground it as much as possible to something others can relate to. And when I know I'm really pushing it, I gauge with a few people who may view things differently from me before I present.    

 

I am not saying, this was all your fault. But I do think there's power in how we communicate and present ideas to others. And how we do so can effect the reactions we get or where those reactions then go. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

At this I wouldn't know where to start. My thought to the fear question is that most of my fears have very little to do with the church. At this time the assumptions would probably become overwhelming. These statements would feel loaded. 

 

 

 

What fears do you have that have little to do with the Church, if I may?

 

[BlueDreams]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What fears do you have that have little to do with the Church, if I may?

Getting married. Not getting married. Having a marriage like my parents. Making enough money. Racism. Sexism. Rural predominately white areas. The deep south. The direction of our political climate. Not having children. Being the first one in a long line of fertile people to struggle with fertility if/when I finally do get married (this one's basically irrational). Turning out to be a crappy mother after wanting to be a mother for so long. Offending someone. Rejection. Not being enough. Scary movies. Large predatory animals. Other UT drivers. Change. My parents dying and me having to raise my younger siblings. Having a chronic illness I didn't know I had until it's too late. Losing muscle tone as I age. Fear of not being enough. Fear of being too different. Getting a migraine. Having my mother's back problems. Turning into my mother emotionally. Screwing up big time with my clients. Not going anywhere in my life. etc.

Most of these fears do not play any major role in my life. But they can come to my mind every once and a while. For the most crippling, I have ways of mitigating and working through them. Ironically some of those tools are heavily gospel oriented. For example, with feelings of inadequacy, one of the first tools that helped me learn to manage it was my Patriarchal Blessing. I would have this long string of thoughts about how I wasn't good enough, scarred, failing, etc. So I pulled every descriptive term the Lord used to describe my in my PB and wrote them down. When the feeling would became overwhelming, I would read the words and tell myself this is how God sees me, this is who I really am. The voice in your head is false.   

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 30, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Getting married. Not getting married. Having a marriage like my parents. Making enough money. Racism. Sexism. Rural predominately white areas. The deep south. The direction of our political climate. Not having children. Being the first one in a long line of fertile people to struggle with fertility if/when I finally do get married (this one's basically irrational). Turning out to be a crappy mother after wanting to be a mother for so long. Offending someone. Rejection. Not being enough. Scary movies. Large predatory animals. Other UT drivers. Change. My parents dying and me having to raise my younger siblings. Having a chronic illness I didn't know I had until it's too late. Losing muscle tone as I age. Fear of not being enough. Fear of being too different. Getting a migraine. Having my mother's back problems. Turning into my mother emotionally. Screwing up big time with my clients. Not going anywhere in my life. etc.

Most of these fears do not play any major role in my life. But they can come to my mind every once and a while. For the most crippling, I have ways of mitigating and working through them. Ironically some of those tools are heavily gospel oriented. For example, with feelings of inadequacy, one of the first tools that helped me learn to manage it was my Patriarchal Blessing. I would have this long string of thoughts about how I wasn't good enough, scarred, failing, etc. So I pulled every descriptive term the Lord used to describe my in my PB and wrote them down. When the feeling would became overwhelming, I would read the words and tell myself this is how God sees me, this is who I really am. The voice in your head is false.   

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for answering.  I'm curious about it though.  To me most of what you said stems from or is based in religion.  I don't know how to see it otherwise, I guess.  So let's start with the top.

Quote

Getting married. Not getting married.

Is that not a fear because of religion?  If you had no affiliation with the Church if you were not religious at all, would you have fear due to marriage?  Or would you be more content as single?  What fears are associated with marriage?

I won't get into others.  I think you may have some reasons why there is no religious fears involved, I suppose.  But for me, whenever I dig deep enough and am honest with myself nearly all fears have some religious connection or reason. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for answering.  I'm curious about it though.  To me most of what you said stems from or is based in religion.  I don't know how to see it otherwise, I guess.  So let's start with the top.

Is that not a fear because of religion?  If you had no affiliation with the Church if you were not religious at all, would you have fear due to marriage?  Or would you be more content as single?  What fears are associated with marriage?

I won't get into others.  I think you may have some reasons why there is no religious fears involved, I suppose.  But for me, whenever I dig deep enough and am honest with myself nearly all fears have some religious connection or reason. 

It may help if you understand that for me "church" and "faith" are not synonymous. Church can tell me things all it wants, but until God says something, I don't pay it much attention. 9 times out of 10 they end up aligning....but it often doesn't start that way and there's things I still disagree with and tend to discard. 

So marriage wasn't really on my radar until God stepped in the way and ruined everything. It's spiritual promptings and awakenings that also woke a desire for marriage and then later children. But if I weren't religious, I think at some point I would have wanted a partner at the very least. I may have found other ways to mitigate the fear. Such as "testing out" partners, cohabitation, etc. But I'm naturally a nurturer. Children calm me down. I'm also loyal and like being with someone...and just one person. The quiet of my house gets to me if it goes for too long. I don't think I'm the sort who's naturally content being single. And religious or not, I'd be seeking a partner.

My fear of getting married is not at all related to church but for family that tends towards dysfunction. It would be absolutely dishonest to say it even remotely deals with church. That fear is common in just about anyone I've ever met, religious or not, who's had a crazier family background.

 

With luv,

BD

 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It may help if you understand that for me "church" and "faith" are not synonymous. Church can tell me things all it wants, but until God says something, I don't pay it much attention. 9 times out of 10 they end up aligning....but it often doesn't start that way and there's things I still disagree with and tend to discard. 

So marriage wasn't really on my radar until God stepped in the way and ruined everything. It's spiritual promptings and awakenings that also woke a desire for marriage and then later children. But if I weren't religious, I think at some point I would have wanted a partner at the very least. I may have found other ways to mitigate the fear. Such as "testing out" partners, cohabitation, etc. But I'm naturally a nurturer. Children calm me down. I'm also loyal and like being with someone...and just one person. The quiet of my house gets to me if it goes for too long. I don't think I'm the sort who's naturally content being single. And religious or not, I'd be seeking a partner.

My fear of getting married is not at all related to church but for family that tends towards dysfunction. It would be absolutely dishonest to say it even remotely deals with church. That fear is common in just about anyone I've ever met, religious or not, who's had a crazier family background.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thanks.  I got ya.  I'm similar in my thinking, I guess that's why I put aside the fears that seem to come from the Church and not from God, so much.