The Plan and the Proclamation

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

OK.  

Let me.....if you give a lesson, are you not the one who chooses how to teach it and therefore can make it relevant and supportive?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I hope we can take back the Proclamation against the gay bashers and the anti-gay marriage folks and reclaim it for what it has meant to many for so many years. A testimony of the importance and power of marriage and family. 

Is any mention of homosexuality in your view an inappropriate appropriation of the Proclamation? 

[sheilauk]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I think our obsession with things gay is sad. I open up my lesson for teaching the 15 year olds a couple months ago, and the topic is marriage, and I'm thinking this will be a great lesson. I can teach about love and commitment, etc. Instead it's all about gay this gay that, defending marriage against gays. What the ....??!!! Who cares? I'm not gay. These kids aren't gay. Let's talk about something that's actually important.

I teach youth and know the come follow me programme.   I taught the August lessons on marriage and family (Sunday school but I'm familiar with the young women and priesthood topics too so I don't overlap).  I've reviewed the topics.  Only one activity refers to same sex marriage (and it's about understanding the church's view and explaining it). Come follow me is a very flexible program.  The teacher in the come follow me program chooses the subject (always more available than the weeks in the month) and the activities within the weekly topic to undertake  (again more suggested than can be done in 40 mins ) so that activity could be skipped.  Other topics included chastity,  bring a good husband / parent, journalling, family history work,  the importance of marriage and family, Temple marriage,  dating standards and so on.  I don't see "gay this and gay that".  Which lesson were you teaching?   What activities did you choose?   Why didn't you just talk about love and commitment since you are not obliged,  with the come follow me program to stick to the activities,  just the doctrine! What lesson in the manual says to you you should teach about defending marriage specifically against gays?  (I dont see it, though there are lessons on the importance of marriage in the plan of salvation and defending/explaining that to non members, most of whom wouldnt be gay.)  I managed 4 weeks without mentioning anything to do with being gay or anti gay.  

[churchistrue]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me.....if you give a lesson, are you not the one who chooses how to teach it and therefore can make it relevant and supportive?

If there was a full lesson on how to do genealogical indexing for your ancestors who might have lived in Mongolia in the 16th century, that would be very difficult to make relevant no matter how talented you were as a teacher. Sometimes the topic is not relevant. Gay marriage is simply not relevant to 97% of Mormons. No matter how disobedient and rebellious I could ever get, I will never come close to getting married to a gay man.

[churchistrue]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Is any mention of homosexuality in your view an inappropriate appropriation of the Proclamation? 

About 3% or whatever of people are homosexual. And since the Proclamation briefly and indirectly refers to homosexuality a couple times, it's probably appropriate to occasionally refer to it in a lesson or talk on the Proclamation. If you did one of those word map things, words like family, marriage, wife, husband, duty, love, etc, would be the big words in the center. Gay and homosexual would be very small words on the outside.

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I don't [know if any students in the class are gay]. Out of 8 kids, it's likely none are gay but possible one or two. The point is, at best an anti-gay marriage lesson is irrelevant. At worst it's damaging to a gay kid. 

 

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you present a lesson, isn't whether that lesson is (a) "irrelevant" or (b) "damaging" almost entirely up to you?   

Just wonderin'!

 

13 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Not following you.

 

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

OK.  

 

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me.....if you give a lesson, are you not the one who chooses how to teach it and therefore can make it relevant and supportive?

 

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

If there was a full lesson on how to do genealogical indexing for your ancestors who might have lived in Mongolia in the 16th century, that would be very difficult to make relevant no matter how talented you were as a teacher. 

Now, perhaps CalM understands my reluctance to engage you.   

You completely ignore our point that, as a teacher and with the current flexibility that exists in curriculum (and the Holy Spirit, if a teacher is open to its promptings, could override curriculum anyway, even if such flexibility were not written into it) you have complete control over whether a lesson is (a) "irrelevant," (b) "damaging," or (c) "hurtful" in favor of clinging to the untruth that curriculum is irrelevant to students by positing (that is to say, completely manufacturing) the existence of a lesson about indexing 16th-century Mongolian names.  That's called moving the goalposts, and it's not an indicator that someone is interested in good-faith discussion.

If I were asked to teach a lesson on indexing 16th-century Mongolian names, I would prepare for that lesson by walking my students through the process of getting signed up to do indexing and would have someone who knows how to index come and visit the class.  Then, the week leading up to the lesson, I would have my students perform some indexing and would make sure that a handful of them were prepared to share any experiences they had while indexing.  I might ask one, or two, or a handful of them to come prepared with general accounts of experiences they've had in the Temple (focusing on the feelings they felt and on whether they felt a connection to the person for whom the ordinance(s) was/were performed, especially if that person is the student's ancestor).  I would invite someone(s) who has experience indexing to come and share experiences s/he/they have had.  And I would talk about the importance of Temple work and about the relationship between indexing and Temple work.

I've served in a couple of Sunday School Presidencies.  If a teacher were to come to me and were to say, "Lessons aren't [x]" (fill in the [x]; they're not [fun], [relevant], [engaging], ad infinitum) I would say, "You're a teacher.  Make them fun, relevant, engaging, et cetera."  If someone were to say, "I don't know how," I would say, "Your students do.  Talk to them."  And if someone were to say, "I'd have better luck getting rocks to talk to me than I do getting my students to talk to me," then I would say, "Then it's time to hit your knees.  You were called to teach this class, and you're entitled to the revelation and inspiration that's necessary to do it.  Whatever you don't know, He does." 

If a student were to confide in me that Brother Dolt, his Sunday School teacher, doesn't know the first thing about effective teaching, I would say, "Well, it sounds like Brother Dolt needs your help then.  Did you read the assigned material before going to class?  No?  Well, it's rather difficult to contribute effectively to a lesson one hasn't read, then, isn't it?  So that's Step 1.  Step 2 might be to say, 'Well, Brother Dolt usually simply reads the lesson and asks the questions that are in the manual.  What experiences have I had with this topic that I might be able to share with other members of the class ..."\'  And even if Steps 1 and 2 don't help the class as a whole, you'll still be better off for having done them.  And even if all else fails, you can pray for Brother Dolt.  I might not know how to help Brother Dolt; you might not know how to help Brother Dolt.  (Or what we try might not work.)  But He knows what will work to help Brother Dolt."  In any event, I would do my best to help my interlocutor to understand that whatever Brother Dolt might leave to be desired as a teacher, there are still things that student can do to help Brother Dolt (or, if nothing else works, he can ask God to help Brother Dolt).  

And if the Ward Sunday School President recommended to the Bishop that I be released for not slavishly following the curriculum, I would be completely OK with that.  And, fortunately or not, largely, the religiously devout have been able to take for granted the kind of religious freedom that exists in the United States.  Sadly, thanks to the way religious freedom decisions have been trending in the United States Supreme Court for the last 20-25 years or so, 20 years from now, that's not going to be the case.  At that point, the religiously devout will rue having taken religious freedom so much for granted.  But at least the same won't be true of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[churchistrue]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Now, perhaps CalM understands my reluctance to engage you.   

You completely ignore our point that, as a teacher and with the current flexibility that exists in curriculum (and the Holy Spirit, if a teacher is open to its promptings, could override curriculum anyway, even if such flexibility were not written into it) you have complete control over whether a lesson is (a) "irrelevant," (b) "damaging," or (c) "hurtful" in favor of clinging to the untruth that curriculum is irrelevant to students by positing (that is to say, completely manufacturing) the existence of a lesson about indexing 16th-century Mongolian names.  That's called moving the goalposts, and it's not an indicator that someone is interested in good-faith discussion.

If I were asked to teach a lesson on indexing 16th-century Mongolian names, I would prepare for that lesson by walking my students through the process of getting signed up to do indexing and would have someone who knows how to index come and visit the class.  Then, the week leading up to the lesson, I would have my students perform some indexing and would make sure that a handful of them were prepared to share any experiences they had while indexing.  I might ask one, or two, or a handful of them to come prepared with general accounts of experiences they've had in the Temple (focusing on the feelings they felt and on whether they felt a connection to the person for whom the ordinance(s) was/were performed, especially if that person is the student's ancestor).  I would invite someone(s) who has experience indexing to come and share experiences s/he/they have had.  And I would talk about the importance of Temple work and about the relationship between indexing and Temple work.

And if the Ward Sunday School President recommended to the Bishop that I be released for not slavishly following the curriculum, I would be completely OK with that. 

I would do the same thing. And that's what I would do about a lesson on gay marriage. Essentially completely ignore it. That doesn't really respond to the issue that the Church is publishing irrelevant lessons. But that's a good suggestion on how to use your brain to overcome the bad lesson plan.

[Avatar4321]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

I have several times

I'm not saying it never happens. I've just never seen it.

in fact I don't see members mention anything about gays. Such discussions usually arise because we are being attacked for our stances on the family and chastity.

take this thread for instance. Elder Oaks warned more about premarital cohabitation than same sex marriage. But what are we talking about?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, sheilauk said:

I teach youth and know the come follow me programme.   I taught the August lessons on marriage and family (Sunday school but I'm familiar with the young women and priesthood topics too so I don't overlap).  I've reviewed the topics.  Only one activity refers to same sex marriage (and it's about understanding the church's view and explaining it). Come follow me is a very flexible program.  The teacher in the come follow me program chooses the subject (always more available than the weeks in the month) and the activities within the weekly topic to undertake  (again more suggested than can be done in 40 mins ) so that activity could be skipped.  Other topics included chastity,  bring a good husband / parent, journalling, family history work,  the importance of marriage and family, Temple marriage,  dating standards and so on.  I don't see "gay this and gay that".  Which lesson were you teaching?   What activities did you choose?   Why didn't you just talk about love and commitment since you are not obliged,  with the come follow me program to stick to the activities,  just the doctrine! What lesson in the manual says to you you should teach about defending marriage specifically against gays?  (I dont see it, though there are lessons on the importance of marriage in the plan of salvation and defending/explaining that to non members, most of whom wouldnt be gay.)  I managed 4 weeks without mentioning anything to do with being gay or anti gay.  

Excellent point, and with you, awaiting a reply.

This is a big deal in Utah, USA and I think it just reflects Utah.  But then again I think anything said which is negative about the church reflects Utah.

Too dang many dang weird Mormons in Utah.

 

 

[Avatar4321]

I wanted to share something

as I mentioned earlier I've started memorizing the proclamation. I'm only about a third of the way through, and even that is tentative.

but I've been noticing a stronger presence of the Spirit. The part that's really hit me is "all human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God." I've always believed this to be true but the Spirit has really been making me feel this is true.

I find that I've been finding opportunities to testify of these truth where I haven't before. Also that I've been testifying much more of God's love for people.

has anyone else seen similar results or experiences?

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I wanted to share something

as I mentioned earlier I've started memorizing the proclamation. I'm only about a third of the way through, and even that is tentative.

but I've been noticing a stronger presence of the Spirit. The part that's really hit me is "all human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God." I've always believed this to be true but the Spirit has really been making me feel this is true.

I find that I've been finding opportunities to testify of these truth where I haven't before. Also that I've been testifying much more of God's love for people.

has anyone else seen similar results or experiences?

I have not tried to memorize it, but I agree the more I study it the more I understand.  I have pretty much memorized the temple ordinances and I am afraid that anything else will push out what is there. But of course it is not politically correct to say that you even affirm the Proclamation lately.

I find the whole notion of complimentary halves of humanity completing each other totally beautiful, good and the will of God.

I think that men and women ARE united in this way so that one half of humanity CAN have intimate knowledge- not just sexually but totally- understanding of the other half of humanity and those who think both halves or the same in any way are simply wrong.   Of course there can be variations, but that is not the point

As we stand for what is right and true as we see it, others will come out of the darkness where they are hiding and speak up as well.   It is a shame what has happened to our world.

The mere fact that the Proclamation exists is a proof that prophets still receive scripture in our day

[Kenngo1969]

56 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I wanted to share something

as I mentioned earlier I've started memorizing the proclamation. I'm only about a third of the way through, and even that is tentative.

but I've been noticing a stronger presence of the Spirit. The part that's really hit me is "all human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God." I've always believed this to be true but the Spirit has really been making me feel this is true.

I find that I've been finding opportunities to testify of these truth where I haven't before. Also that I've been testifying much more of God's love for people.

has anyone else seen similar results or experiences?

That's interesting, since, according to some, the overriding message of The Proclamation (and, by extension, of Elder Oaks's latest General Conference address)  is "God Hates Gays."  

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I would do the same thing. And that's what I would do about a lesson on gay marriage. Essentially completely ignore it. That doesn't really respond to the issue that the Church is publishing irrelevant lessons. But that's a good suggestion on how to use your brain to overcome the bad lesson plan.

Please point out a lesson that's [supposed to be] on gay marriage in current curriculum. Thanks in advance.

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I would do the same thing. And that's what I would do about a lesson on gay marriage. Essentially completely ignore it. That doesn't really respond to the issue that the Church is publishing irrelevant lessons. But that's a good suggestion on how to use your brain to overcome the bad lesson plan.

You agree with all of the points that I just made, yet you're the one complaining about allegedly-irrelevant, allegedly-damaging, allegedly-hurtful curriculum.  Those two positions seem incongruous to me  (but perhaps it's just that my simple mind isn't capable of making that leap. )  Please clarify.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

... Too dang many dang weird Mormons in Utah.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/utah-mormon-through-and-through/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/repairing-cyberspace-rifts/

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Avatar4321]

48 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's interesting, since, according to some, the overriding message of The Proclamation (and, by extension, of Elder Oaks's latest General Conference address)  is "God Hates Gays."  

curious since the proclamation explicitly states otherwise

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/utah-mormon-through-and-through/

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/repairing-cyberspace-rifts/

 

Oops.  I hit a nerve and offended my Bro and Buddy Kenngo!

Sorry dude!

Honestly I think the difference is more about coming from a culture which did not even know what a "Mormon" was and being told that "Mormons believe that some Indians were saints", to where I am today.  We are talking New York City and LA and San Diego.  What's Utah?  A bunch of weird farmers.  Being from New York, I thought LA was actually "provincial" and that San Diego was a "nice little town" and San Francisco was pretentious with no real substance.  So Utah??  The desert?  What good could be THERE?

First you have to overcome the weird images people believe to even check it out.  Then one comes to a kind of benevolent condescension that "Oh, what the heck, I will check it out- it might be interesting, they have a good choir after all"

Then after getting 7/8 through my Masters in Philosophy, living in New York in Greenwich Village and perfectly confident of my Superiority Over All,  suddenly I discovered these weird folks in the desert believed stuff that PERFECTLY mirrored everything I had "discovered for myself by my own pure brilliance"  

HUH????

I can actually LEARN stuff from these bumpkins?   How is that possible??

I started studying 

Then I meet this Mormon girl because I want to know more.  I don't want to make it too weird so I guess I will just ask her out for a drink,  we can have a little discussion about her weird religion

"She doesn't drink" says my friend who knew her

"No problem we will just go out for coffee then"

"She doesn't drink coffee"

Oh my gosh- now I am committed to a full fledged date- a movie or something.  Ugh.  Well she is kind of cute anyway I guess.....

So after the movie  and ice cream,  I say "Tell me about your religion.  Explain eternal progression to me?"

Dang she was smooth and took it in stride- we talked about eternal progression and the next day she gave me a Book of Mormon and the rest is history- at least MY history! 

Life changing event.

But there's still Utah to deal with.

I got more humble but I am not there yet totally.   Sorry dude.  My eternal sweetheart comes from the same people you do, pioneer stock, came over on the Mayflower, crossed the plains, half the family stayed in Nauvoo and never prospered, the ones that came west prospered and were blessed.

God is not done with me yet, sorry amigo.  I am working on it.

But the difference is strictly cultural.  You grew up knowing the wonderful side of Mormon culture, I grew up thinking differently.

Seeing it from MY perspective is just as hard for you as seeing it from YOUR perspective is hard for me.   What are your stereotypes about New Yorkers?

You don't have to answer - just know that you do have them most likely

But if not, you are a better man than I- and that is clearly the case anyway!

Edited October 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

9 hours ago, churchistrue said:

About 3% or whatever of people are homosexual. And since the Proclamation briefly and indirectly refers to homosexuality a couple times, it's probably appropriate to occasionally refer to it in a lesson or talk on the Proclamation. If you did one of those word map things, words like family, marriage, wife, husband, duty, love, etc, would be the big words in the center. Gay and homosexual would be very small words on the outside.

So was Elder Oaks' talk inappropriate in your view?

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Oops.  I hit a nerve and offended my Bro and Buddy Kenngo!

Sorry dude! ...

Oh, no.  Please don't misunderstand.  I should have included at least a brief comment for context.  I'm not offended in the least, Brother Mark. (And even if I were tempted to take offense, I would strive to remember that old saying about fools, and taking offense where it isn't intended, and taking offense where it is intended: "The only person who's a greater fool than someone who takes offense where it isn't intended ...")

As I hope I make absolutely crystal clear in the foregoing links, no, I don't think anyone should succumb to pride of place or to pride of pedigree, whether he's "Utah-born-and-bred" and "Mormon-true-blue-through-and-through" or not.  Whether one is a sixth-generation Latter-day Saint and a native Utahn or whether one is a first-generation Latter-day Saint who's never even heard of Utah, as the old song (and the saying which inspired it) goes, "He ain't heavy.  He's my brother."  

Now, having said that, I think that any non-Utah Latter-day Saint who is the least bit tempted to look down his nose at those "D*** Utah Mormons" (my phrase ) should stop and consider whether there would be any "Mormons" period if there were no Utah Mormons.  I think that, clearly, the answer to that question is, "No."  Certainly, more than a few of those who were responsible for the demise of "Ol' Joe Smith" thought that they had killed "Mormonism" right along with him.

Thanks be to God, they were wrong.

I should also point out that the enormous pride I feel about my home state and many of its inhabitants did not prevent me at all from enjoying and fully appreciating one of the greatest privileges of my life, serving among your people in Southern California as a missionary, Mark (though, to be fair, some of them were Utah transplants ).  

I want the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ to spread far and wide ... to Italy, where my sister-in-law was the only member of her family to embrace it; to France and to the United Kingdom, where some of my ancestors embraced it; to Mexico, where I found fellowship with the Saints during a 34-day whirlwind tour as a study-abroad student; to Spain, where I had even more hectic 8-day whirlwind tour; to Africa, where, contrary to Parker, Stone, and Lopez's clumsy satire, people are embracing it in droves and finding it very relevant to their challenges; and to all points in between. And I don't care if these people never even hear of Utah.  

Cultural differences aside, we're all members of the Family of God. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

curious since the proclamation explicitly states otherwise

Well, y'know, ya just have to read "between the lines," I guess.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, no.  Please don't misunderstand.  I should have included at least a brief comment for context.  I'm not offended in the least, Brother Mark. (And even if I were tempted to take offense, I would strive to remember that old saying about fools, and taking offense where it isn't intended, and taking offense where it is intended: "The only person who's a greater fool than someone who takes offense where it isn't intended ...")

 

Oh so I am a fool for taking offense where none was intended HUH??  

 

 

 

Just kidding!

Thanks- good points!

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh so I am a fool for taking offense where none was intended HUH??  

Just kidding!

Thanks- good points!

Oh, trust me!  I'm a bigger fool than you'll ever be!  But as that great philosopher, Aaron Neville, once sang: 

 

[churchistrue]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

So was Elder Oaks' talk inappropriate in your view?

I would never tell an apostle his talk was inappropriate. 

[longview]

On 10/6/2017 at 1:51 PM, ksfisher said:

There is a distinction between being a god and being a glorified, exalted being.  We believe that the Holy Ghost is a god, a member of the godhead.  We do not, however, believe that the Holy Ghost has achieved exaltation.  The same would apply to Christ.

After Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, did He not acquire a fully Celestialized glorified body?  He is the "First-fruits" of the Resurrection.

[longview]

On 10/4/2017 at 10:05 PM, JLHPROF said:

I agree.  But expressing that Christ wasn't fully God in premortality can get you in trouble these days.  Since Jehovah in the OT was clearly fully God.

It is explicitly taught that Jehovah was the "Firstborn" of the Father in the First Estate.  I.E. the very first of spirit children of Heavenly Father.  Therefore we are literally brothers and sisters to Jehovah as far as spirit beings.   Jehovah was NOT married or "exalted" at the point of becoming the "Firstborn."   God the Father occupies an "office" in the Godhead which is a priesthood function.  Likewise Jehovah has a position in the Godhead but is clearly and unequivocally subordinate to the Father.