“Spiritual understanding rarely comes from a lecture. It comes in classrooms where questions are welcome, where doubts and fears can be expressed, and where honest opinions are never dismissed. It comes from obedience, private study, and prayer. Spiritually, the classroom of faith becomes less like a lecture hall and more like a fitness center. Students do not get stronger by watching someone else do the exercises. They learn and then participate. As their spiritual strength increases, they gain confidence and apply themselves all the more.”
-Elder Neil A. Andersen
Recently, a story was shared with me about an event that transpired in my ward’s relief society during a third-hour lesson that involved some conflict and tension. In that lesson, a sister expressed a non-orthodox opinion. In response to that non-orthodox opinion, a protectively orthodox opinion was stated. What is interesting about this event is that after the lesson, ward leaders sought out feedback from those in attendance, and here is what they took away from the feedback:
- Some women stated that they felt the “Spirit leave” when the non-orthodox opinion was shared
- Other women stated that they appreciated the non-orthodox opinion and felt that the protectively stated orthodox opinion led to the “Spirit leaving”
This story made me wonder the following questions:
- Should church be a place where conflicting opinions are shared and expressed?
- As members of the church, should we seek to draw out conflicting opinions?
- Is it possible for conflicting opinions and healthy cohesion to exist simultaneously?
- Should stake and ward leaders make efforts to help members feel more comfortable expressing opinions that may conflict with other peoples’ opinions?
- How should I view diverging opinions expressed at church?
Let me discuss each of these questions.
Should church be a place where conflicting opinions are shared and expressed?
Most people are not very comfortable with conflict, and this is especially the case within organizations with strong norms. Naturally, people prefer to huddle around the safety of majority views. Also, people tend to be quick to disbelieve those with minority views, often either defending the majority view or confronting the minority view.
From my experience, our church possesses some strong ideals around cohesion, being “of one mind,” and community. Combine these ideals with (1) a strong hierarchical structure and (2) notions that “dissension” (which, at its core, means disagreement) is a slippery slope to apostasy; and voilà, we have strong social norms that suggest that conflicting opinions and disagreement are not welcome at church. And, because these strong social norms exist, when conflicting opinions and disagreement occur at church, it does make members feel uncomfortable, and they are inclined to internalize this discomfort as the “Spirit leaving.”
This is surely understandable, and we have all been there. But, is it acceptable?
One of the most famous studies on conflict set up a situation where business managers were put into groups (think groups of 4-5). For half of these groups, a confederate to the study was inserted and designed to play the role of devil’s advocate (the participants in the study were unaware of that confederates had been placed in their groups). Then, these groups were given a complex problem, and the quality and quantity of solutions were measured. What the researchers found was that the groups with the devil’s advocate generated higher quantity and higher quality ideas compared to the groups without a devil’s advocate.
But, here is where it gets more interesting… All of the groups were asked to vote to remove a group member. For those groups with a confederate devil’s advocate, all of the confederate devil’s advocates were voted out of their groups.
Thus, what the researchers found is that because of people’s discomfort with conflict, they voted off the one individual that made them more successful than other groups.
So, on the surface, this suggests that within the church, while we may not be very comfortable with conflicting opinions, we would likely benefit from having people share such opinions.
Thus, the answer to this question is not so simple. This leads us to our next question.
As members of the church, should we seek to draw out conflicting opinions?
It is important to recognize that there are two types of conflict: task conflict and relationship conflict. Task conflict is focused on issues and ideas. Relationship conflict is focused on people.
Research on these types of conflict has found that (1) relationship conflict is almost always negative, so we should avoid it; (2a) moderate amounts of task conflict leads to the highest levels of group performance, including higher levels of innovation, creativity, development, and improvement (too little and too much is not beneficial); and (2b) task conflict can translate into relationship conflict, thus there is reason to be sensitive to the task conflict that does occur.
In all, the research suggests that if we want greater levels of learning, innovation, and improvement, it is necessary to have conflicting opinions, as long as the conflicting opinions revolve around issues, topics, or ideas, and not around the people that express such issues or ideas.
This further suggests that if conflicting opinions are not being shared, seeking such opinions and drawing them out would likely benefit the group.
The big value in doing so is because it forces us to think at a deeper level. A problem with a lack of conflicting opinions and majority thinking is that it usually does not involve much thinking.
Let me give you an example. It is not uncommon for someone in church to talk about “the enabling power of the atonement.” When this happens, we usually do not give this much thought (e.g., define what it means, question its applicability in our lives), as it seems to be an accepted principle. But, what if someone were to express the idea that they believed that “the enabling power of the atonement” is a vague and not properly defined idea that, unless understood more fully, may have some negative unintended consequences, such as seeking strength to fight our temptations rather than the more effective route of running from them. Whether accurate or not, such a comment would surely enhance the level and depth of thinking in the class.
Is it possible for conflicting opinions and healthy cohesion to exist simultaneously?
The short answer to this question is “yes,” but because that is too easy, I will expound.
The truth is that most people are uncomfortable with conflict, especially in church. But, what we need to remember is that the degree to which conflict is positive or negative is less about the conflict and more about how we see, value, and interpret conflict. Truly, conflict is neutral, and it only becomes negative or positive depending upon how we interpret the conflict.
To demonstrate, imagine an elders quorum or Relief Society class where the teacher brings up the topic of loving those “on the fringes,” which includes people who experience same-gender attraction (which is 4-5 members per ward, on average). During this lesson, someone expresses something that is likely to be an unpopular view: “I believe that the Church should allow gay people to receive sacred ordinances.” Undoubtedly, such a comment is likely in conflict with the majority of opinions in the room.
Take Tammy for example, who sees conflict as being negative. She is likely to interpret the comment as being negative, and even, a cause of the “Spirit leaving.”
But, take Joan as another example, who sees conflict as being positive. She is likely to be unfazed by the comment, and is likely to then ask the questions: “What makes you say that?” and “What does this person know about same-gender attraction and homosexuality that I do not know?”
The result of the situation is going to be dramatically different for Tammy and for Joan, and the only difference is in their mindset toward conflict.
Thus, conflict and cohesion can exist, if we have the right mindset toward conflict. Also, if we happen to believe that everyone is heading toward the same outcome or purpose, we are more open to conflict, because it is often a necessary part of reaching the outcome or purpose.
If you are interested in more on this topic, check out this great TedX talk, entitled “The Beauty of Conflict.”
Should stake and ward leaders make efforts to help members feel more comfortable expressing opinions that may conflict with other peoples’ opinions?
Yes! Resounding yes!
Here is why. Have you ever heard of Google? Yeah, that’s the one. The big innovative tech company that keeps changing the world. Well, a few years ago, they did a massive study to try to determine what factors led to top team performance. They looked into expertise, team tenure, personality, diversity, etc. But, for quite a while, they were not finding anything that correlated with top team performance. But, they ended up stumbling upon a primary factor that has now been found to be the strongest predictor of top team performance. That factor is called psychological safety.
Psychological safety is essentially the degree to which individuals within a group feel like they can (1) express their opinions and ideas and (2) take risks, both without fear of repercussion from the group.
When individuals feel safe to express opinions and take risks within a team, everyone on the team feels of value and is committed to the team. When individuals’ voices are not heard or individuals feel that their voice will not be heard, they do not feel of value and are thus not committed to the team.
You have been there in one form or another. You had a great idea, and you took it to your boss or ward leader, and they immediately shut your idea down. How did you feel afterward? How likely were you to speak up again moving forward?
If we want our wards and branches to truly be a safe environment, it has got to be a place where people can express their opinions, regardless of what they are. And, if people in a ward or branch currently do not feel like they can express their opinions, even conflicting opinions, ward leaders should make efforts to help members feel more comfortable doing so.
Unless they do, the people who do not feel comfortable expressing their opinions will feel of lower and lower value within the congregation, and that means lower and lower engagement and commitment.
How should I view diverging opinions expressed at church?
In all, as mentioned at the outset, most people are uncomfortable with conflict, and thus seek to avoid it. Yet, conflict and openness to conflicting opinions seem to be an essential component of productive, effective, and engaging groups.
As stated previously, conflict really is a neutral topic. It only becomes negative or positive based on our perception of it. If we see conflict as negative, it will have negative effects. If we see conflict as positive, it can lead to some monumental positive effects.
Thus, we should view diverging opinions as being a good thing. They will push and improve our thinking, and they are evidence that people feel safe and that they are engaged.
What we really do not want to have happen, and you have probably seen it, is someone provides a diverging opinion (one that may even cast the Church in a negative light), and people react defensively and with criticism, almost as if the one providing a diverging opinion is a bad person for the way they think (this is the transition between task and relationship conflict). There are few things that can be more detrimental to that person with a diverging opinion.
So, I invite you to have a conflict-is-helpful mindset and to help your ward or branch to be a psychologically safe environment by seeking out and inviting conflicting opinions if they do not naturally come out. We will all be better for it.
Ryan Gottfredson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Organizational Behavior at California State University-Fullerton. His topical expertise is in success mindsets, leadership development, performance management, and organizational topics that include employee engagement, psychological safety, trust, and fairness. He holds a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources from Indiana University and a BA from Brigham Young University. Additionally, he is a former Gallup workplace analytics consultant, where he designed research efforts and engaged in data analytics to generate business solutions for dozens of organizations across various industries. He has published over 15 articles in various journals including Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management, Business Horizons, and Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. You can check out his leadership and personal success blog at https://www.ryangottfredson.com/.
Especially in counsels, there is a huge difference between conflict/contention on on side and disagreement on the other. I recently heard a talk from a General Authority who told us that he had talked with President Packer before he passed away. President Packer told him that in his decades of service in the quorum of the 12 that only two decisions were immediately unanimous and required no further discussion: switching from using the term “genealogy” to “family history and temple work”, and adding the subtitle “another testament of Jesus Christ” to the Book of Mormon. Other than that it always took some time (and often much time) to come to unity and consensus.
That’s a great point. I’m not sure that the 35-40 minutes of class time is sufficient to delve into a particular topic and truly understand all sides of the issue. However, another tactic I’ve found useful is to use that time to “test the waters” and seek out people who might have an opposing viewpoint and see if they might want to engage in a healthy dialogue.
The change in the way the Gospel is taught: Teaching in the Saviors Way may invite discussion, but it isn’t the Saviors way to “test the waters” . While challenging misconceptions with love and patience, we shouldn’t be actively cultivating “opposing viewpoints” just for the sake of healthy dialogue. Discussion and healthy learning is good, conflict for discussion’s sake isn’t. Look at how the Savior taught: he asked questions to gauge understanding, used allegory to illustrate, called the people to repentance and testified of His Father. He didn’t suffer fools who tempted Him with baited questions.
I agree. My point was simply that if we limit our conversations to the Sunday meetings we likely won’t get to the depth we need to. The Savior taught (and still does) 24/7, not just in a 3-hour block on Sundays.
I appreciate Taylor’s comment. My question would be are we allowing “opinion” to substitute for doctrine? Many have differing opinions on practices, ie. when it’s best to read scriptures, how to discipline children, etc., but we should conclude a discussion with true doctrine from the scriptures or general conference talks, or other authoritative sources. If we are aiming to be of one heart and one mind, then we need to find unity in doctrine and principles, and not be swayed by opinions.
Sorry! I meant Jack’s comment!! (Although I appreciate Taylor’s too.) And my question was directed at the writer of the post. Sorry for the confusion.
Rozy. I think you bring up a point that is important to discuss, although one I did not discuss in the article, mainly because it requires an article itself, and that is the role of “doctrine” in all of this (vs. opinion, as you mentioned). One of the things to take into consideration is that there are some people who see things in black/white and others who see things in shades of grey. You even see this among general authorities (although it typically comes out more when they attend a stake conference). Even among the brethren, there are some that are black/white on a particular topic and others that are more “shades of grey.”
This leads to the bigger issue of: What is “doctrine?” It is a word that we throw out quite a bit, but one that very few can define clearly. And, if they feel like they can define it clearly, it is different than almost everyone else’s definition.
While I definitely think our lessons/councils need more “doctrine,” ask yourself, how much of what is discussed in a council (which is meant to be a dialogue) is “doctrine?”
For example, yesterday in my EQ, the question we discussed is: “How do we create unity in the EQ?” The answers were varied and some of the answers seemed contradictory to each other. While contradiction and conflicting opinions may be disruptive to some, if the space is not one where contradiction and conflicting opinions cannot occur, it is not going to be an environment that is safe or one with high-level thinking.
But, in my opinion, it all comes back to “doctrine.” What exactly is doctrine? And, even if there is a definitive “doctrinal” answer, how should we use it? Should we use it as a weapon to quiet critics of that doctrine? Or would it be better to listen to those critics with love and understand where they are coming before we even consider brandishing our “doctrine” sword?
You forget that what the Savior taught was in complete conflict with the tradition, culture, and beliefs of the time. Many of his parables were in absolute conflict with the Pharisees, societal norms, and doctrinal consensus. Most of his disciples lived in undeniable conflict with what was considered acceptable at the time. So to say that the Savior did not use conflict to bring to pass the Lord’s work is a complete mistake.
I agree with you,. However, conflict and contention are not the same, and often conflict is based on musconceptions. Where else can conflicts be resolved. Certainly not with the help of those who actually believe the “spirit leaves” when an opinion different from their own is expressed If such wee the case, I believe we would have a fairly high turnover among the Fifteen in the Thursday temple meetings. We are told that we should pray and ponder together to COME TO a unity of the faith. It is only when members move from conflct to contention that the spirit leaves. THus we should always strive to understand opinions unlike our own and question how others arrived at that opinion. Who knows, maybe it is we who are a little in error and can learn from such discussions.
It all depends on how you define “conflict.” If it is defined as “disagreement,” this is fine. Disagreement happens all the time, as should healthy discussion. When “conflict” escalates to “contention,” something needs to change.
Thanks, Ryan, for addressing my question. I think your example is a good one: “How do we create unity in the EQ?” In my mind unity is the doctrine, If ye are not one, ye are not mine. But there is no one correct way to practice that or achieve that, so there could be as many ways as there are people in the room. On other doctrines, such as marriage is between one man and one woman, there doesn’t seem to be much room for opinion or variation of practice. I hope this clarifies what I was thinking as I read the post and made my comment. Some doctrines and principles allow a wide variety of applications, practices and methods, while other doctrines don’t. So I guess it would depend on what the subject of a discussion is to know if varying opinions would be acceptable. I think it also depends on the leader’s/teacher’s adeptness at relating opinions to examples from the scriptures or conference talks to help those who’ve not thought of this before to know it is valid. (Hope that makes sense.)
All great points! And, I couldn’t agree more that it surely depends on the subject.
But, sometimes topics like marriage between one and one woman, while seems clear and straight-forward, also have elements about them that are surely up for “debate.” For example, I live in California, and when Prop 8 was going on, people talked about that topic very differently than they way the church leaders talk about it now. So, while the doctrine has stayed the same, the practices, approach, and tone have changed. Further, the conversation on the topic takes a very different tone if someone in the class is willing to discuss that they have a family member that has same-gender attraction. That is why I think it is so important to create an environment where everyone can express their thoughts and opinions.
From my personal experience, I was quite opinionated and ignorant about homosexuality until I married into a family with family members that are in same-gender relationships. I quickly learned how ignorant I was and was forced to change my paradigm about the situation after hearing their experiences being raised in the church. Hence for me, the topic has a lot of grey-ness. But for people who have not had my same experiences, it is easier to see the topic as black/white. But, if we can create a space for dialog, then we can both learn from each other. If there is not space for dialog, little learning occurs.
Thanks again, Ryan. It’s nice to converse with courteous people and find common ground.
Thank you all for your sincere and considered answers. As a new EQP and seminary teacher I face a dichotomy of opinions and ideas from a range of ages. I particularly enjoy the questions from the young people and some of the best discussions arise from perceived contrasts in doctrine. As Ryan mentioned above, it would be great to investigate exactly what ‘Doctrine’ is? As I don’t think there is a definitive answer? Even in early morning seminary when none of us are fully awake – we have discussed the difference between the Gospel and the Church. The possible literal and figurative interpretations of scriptural events. Religious versus scientific understandings. And recently with the 40 year anniversary of Blacks receiving the Priesthood the change of what was considered for 150 years as revelation to that of policy. Even seemingly silly things like – do angels have wings or does Adam have a belly button? The young people love it when they disagree with me and earn a chocolate bar for their reasoning or especially a huge chocolate bar if they can change my opinion. And I love it that they feel comfortable bringing up these questions.
The important aspect is to maintain an environment where they can safely ask questions. This takes practice and trust must be earned. Brene Brown discussed vulnerability based trust or as you mentioned psychological safety; this is so much easier amongst the youth. But as adults we have to be better prepared and practiced at positively addressing nuanced questions and opinions. These same questions in Gospel doctrine would be quickly dismissed and treated as frivolous. As Elder Ballard said in one CES presentation – gone are the days when asked a sincere question we can just bear testimony and move on. If only for our youths sakes, we need to be more receptive to differences of opinion and to find joy in finding positive ways in expressing ourselves and actively listening to others do the same.
I believe if we can really listen to a persons story we will not be able to go away without understanding the reason a person believes or acted in a particular way; even if we do not agree or approve of that action. At least then we have a better basis to communicate our perspective.
I greatly appreciate this site and the insights I have gained from reading your informed articles and especially how I can apply these ideas to my Elders quorum under the new ministering paradigm.
Read 3 Nephi 11:28-30. There is a fine line between “disagreement” and “contention,” which the Savior made clear has no place whatsoever in His church. See also Doctrine and Covenants 38:27 and 101:6.
The world teaches using the sharing of ideas and opinions. That’s not how the Lord has instructed us to teach; “if it be by some other way some other way it is not of me”. Teachers need to frame their questions better so there is no opinion expressed in their answer. The Gospel is not up for relativistic interpretation. There is a meaning the Lord has intended and it’s up to people to learn what that is (& teachers to teach what that is)…..not what they feel it might be, what they feel the Lord could be saying here, or what this scripture means to me – that’s how the world teaches. Teachers need to be stronger in keeping the lesson on track. If they feel a need to ask the class questions keep the questions based in scripture (eg examples from the scriptures – asking about people’s experiences opens pandora’s box). Always direct people’s mind to the scriptures. That’s where people will be united and contention avoided….when the Savior visited the Nephites he was clear about contentions within the church – that there shall be none. Sticking to the scriptures makes that possible.
I’ll take a note from my article and bring up a little “conflict” here and disagree with you. Here is an except from Teaching in the Savior’s Way:
“ASK QUESTIONS THAT TOUCH THE HEART AND MIND
Once learners have basic knowledge about a story or principle, ask questions that help them ponder its meaning so that the story or principle can touch their hearts and minds. You might ask learners to share how they feel about a scripture passage, how the people in the scriptures may have felt, or how the truths in the passage relate to our lives. Because responses to these questions often rely on the feelings and experiences of the learners, the questions usually do not have just one correct answer. Often these questions begin with phrases like “in your opinion” or “how do you feel.” For example, you could ask, “How do you think the Apostles might have felt as they walked to the Garden of Gethsemane with the Savior? How do you feel about what Jesus did there?”
I am not sure how it is possible for there to be “no opinion.” Isn’t living the gospel made up of opinion? For example, whether one should swim on Sundays is largely a matter of opinion, is it not? To me that is the beauty of church, I get to hear how other people live our religion, which helps me in navigating my own life. I guess I am one that sees things in shades of gray, and based upon what you wrote, it seems like you see things in white and black. Regardless, I think we can learn from each other.
Hi Ryan, thank you for your response above. Teaching in black & white (ie in absolutes) is how Jesus & his prophets in the Scriptures taught. The Scriptures are the standard (works). The Book of Mormon is the work of the Father to gather scattered Israel so following the pattern of how these prophets taught puts me in good company because they taught as the Savior. In 3 Nephi we have a perfect account of Jesus’ teaching style. Likewise, the Bible also provides a record of Jesus’ teachings as far as it’s translated correctly. Reading The Doctrine & Covenants we witness the Lord’s voice very, very clearly teaching in black and white (absolutes).
These words (teaching style of the Lord) was the teaching manual for the early missionaries. They copied Him and baptized thousands upon thousands into the Church. You may say, well, that was the 1830s… I know of at least one Mission President who followed the same pattern and had the highest baptizing mission in Europe during his tenure. General authorities visited including from Quorum of the Twelve. I know one missionary how baptized about 105 people in 18-months (due to being in office). Many other missionaries baptized at a similar rate because they taught in black and white.
There are levels of teaching ability. And in the scriptures are the perfect models. And in Church History are stories of people who had faith to teach in like manner. Their fruits bare witness to it.
Many teaching manuals have been published by the Church which have been good, and I will happily receive those to come in the future. The Church understands that in all things people are to be taught line upon line, and learning to be a Gospel Teacher is no exception. One doesn’t begin teaching at a master level, it comes with increased knowledge (study) and spirituality, as per Joseph Smith. After some years he grew into a great teacher who taught as the Savior taught. Hence the teaching manuals as a starting point. Not an end in themselves. Hopefully Gospel Teachers grow from that point as they gain further light and truth.
So it’s not that we’re at odds or in conflict. Just describing different degrees of teaching ability.
Oh and opinions still have no place in the TEACHING of the Gospel if one is seeking the mind of Christ. When one gains the mind of Christ one will think as He thinks, speak as He speaks so no opinion necessary. Muse and ponder all you like on gospel topics but when teaching the Gospel of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance…and misery thou shalt receive if thou wilt slight these counsels, yea, even the destruction of thyself….
Have a nice day.
Hi there,
I find it interesting that you didn’t address, in any way, the item from the new Teaching the Savior’s Way that Ryan brought up. It appears your focus is on TEACHING a LESSON and TEACHING the DOCTRINE when we all know we should teach people. You can tell people who are not interested in their classroom learing environment by how much they focus on the ‘lesson’:
We need to get back to the lesson, there’s so much to cover
There isn’t much time left, so let’s get back…..
This lesson is so packed, I don’t know if we’ll have time to get through it all
I can only imagine what experiences led you to the viewpoint you are doggedly holding to in this conversation, but it must have really been frustrating. Additionally the Church as largely frustrated by the previous curriculum we had where teachers were basically given ‘scripture blocks’ and you just never knew what you were going to get, which is why the new curriculum created ‘suggested lesson plans’ for teachers. I think we have a lot of left-over angst about that old style of teaching, but it has been a couple of decades since that change.
I think the conversation is talking past each other – I do not believe Ryan is saying that you should teach opinions rather than doctrine, and I believe you are concerned about potential ‘take-over’ of class for personally held belief/opion, etc over pure doctrine. I’m not unsympathetic to your ideas, I just don’t think they make for a very interesting experience on Sunday and leads to disengagement.
I quickly took another gander at the Teaching the Savior’s Way curriculum and many topics, to me, are very interesting:
Focus on People, Not Lessons
Invite Diligent Learning
Lead Inspired Discussions
Love Those You Teach
Respond to Difficult Questions with Faith
Take Advantage of Spontaneous Teaching Moments
Teach by the Spirit
Teach the Doctrine
Use Music, Stories, and Art to Teach Doctrine
Notice how Teach the Doctrine is couched among many other responsibilities a teacher has. What I find most endearing about an SS class is not the doctrine, most of us can answer typical SS questions with both hands tied behind our backs, our eyes closed, and if we know the topic of the lesson, likely we can even predict the questions and answers that will come.
What we all need from each other is SHARED LIVED EXPERIENCES of those doctrines. In SS class I want to hear other’s experiences, I want them to share how a principle of the gospel played out in their lives, how they may have found something changed along the way with a new experience (first we see through a glass darkly – often and when we become ‘men’ we put off childish things) – I find that many of us view our lived experiences of the principles of the gospel differently as we age, as singles, as young marrieds, as young parents, as parents of teen agers, as empty nesters with grandchildren, etc.. each new phase of life brings a multiplicity of perspects or ‘takes’ on living gospel principles that I want to hear from ward members who are either in the same stage of life I am, or maybe one I’m entering and I can learn from them. Its not hard to shape questions for these results, and when an outlier happens, we thank people for sharing and move on to the next person.
What I find is that my own understanding of gospel principles is enhanced by the experiences of others. And I absolutely know that the spirit of the Lord accompanies the shared expressions of testimony that those experiences convey. I want the overwhelming influence of the spirit in SS that comes when a teacher is effectively guiding a class through gospel principles and how they apply to our lives directly. I know the story of David and Bathsheba, I want to hear how others have dealt with temptation in their lives so I can benefit from that experience. I don’t want to rehash the story of Moroni’s Standard, I want to hear about others experiences as they stood for truth and righteousness when it wasn’t so popular, etc… so I can take courage from their courage, etc…
Sunday School hasn’t been about a ‘lesson’ in a long time, but many of us have just not ever read the guidance in the 1st chapter of manuals, I have met teachers, SS Presidents, Bishops and Stake Presidents who had NEVER read that ‘helps for the teachers’ in the beginning of curriculum published by the church, if they had, we’d have a much different environment than we have now in SS.
Hi John, thanks for your input. What I wrote aren’t my ideas, they’re the Lord’s ideas as found in the scriptures. He’s the one who has said to teach this particular way. I never teach my ideas, as a Gospel Teacher. If the way I’m describing to you sounds boring then take it up with the Lord because it is how He taught, it is how his prophets taught. I don’t think the Lord’s visit to the Nephites in 3 Nephi was boring, nor do I think the Teachings of Joseph Smith are boring, who taught in like manner.
I did address the manual, Teaching in the Saviors Way (a paragraph on it). In essence the manual is a most basic way of teaching. The Church provides manuals for the lesser of the Saints (teaching people to teach is a line upon line process). There have been many manuals and will continue to be many manuals about being a Gospel Teacher in the Church, and I’m grateful for them. There are higher ways of teaching, higher than what the manual teachers, which you can observe in the scriptures and over the long history of the church. Grateful for the manuals as a starting point for those learning to become Gospel Teachers.
The amount of time I put into preparation and study for teaching is a fruit of the love I have for those being taught (not a Saturday night or Sacrament meeting preparer). Anyway if you haven’t experienced this type of Gospel Teaching you won’t have a testimony of it nor seen the joy it brings to many who say that “heaven has been made clear”, “that the dots are being connected”, “that things are starting to make sense”. There are mysteries in the scriptures that the Spirit can teach SS students when pure doctrine is being taught. They’re not the simple answers you were describing. They’re personal answers, that can help everyone whose heart is open to receive Him. You have your agency, teach how you want. As for me and my house, we’ll strive to be Master Gospel Teachers.
Hi There …. I recognize you now. You are that guy in Church who constantly uses the logical fallacy called “appealing to authority” to justify your position. In this case, you see to align your views my stating they are essentially the same as Jesus Christ, and anybody who disagrees with you is against Jesus Christ. Your style of argumentation is flawed, because it relies upon a flawed assumption that you are anyone else can fully know what you call the “mind of God”. Now you say you know the mind of God fully and completely based upon your reliance upon the scriptures. But even a person with an elementary knowledge of the scriptures would know that the scriptures themselves say you are wrong. They do not contain a fullness of the mind of God, the contain only a small portion, even 1/1000th or less, of all the things He said, taught, and did. Rigidity in not a strength my friend, it is a way to glorify close mindedness. We are an on going religion because revelation is on going. I think you are getting very close to idolatry in your worship of the scriptures. You will not be saved by them, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. What you read in the scriptures was certainly true when given, and may be true now, and often is. But it seems to me you are want to avoid the ongoing process of relying on the living oracles rather than the dead ones.
Hi Douglas, I don’t make any “assumption” it seems you have made “assumptions”. It is true “that you are anyone else can fully know what you call the “mind of God”.” I wrote “Christ” not “God” anyway it’s not my idea, I never use my opinion in Gospel Teaching, it is actually the words of Paul who wrote to the Corinthians about having “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:19).
“Now you say you know the mind of God fully and completely based upon your reliance upon the scriptures.” I never actually wrote this. Again your assumption. Once a person understands the scriptures then a knowledge of the mysteries contained therein are opened to them to further gain the mind of Christ (it’s a line upon line process). One should not teach mysteries. That’s why we’re instructed to follow the Brethren in all things who teach from the scriptures. They base their General Conference talks on a scripture(s) and then expound. As well as being special witnesses of Christ, their role is to also point to back to Joseph Smith, the Great Restorer and our dispensation head (every prophet point back to their dispensation head eg Nephi points to Isaiah etc). This is the order of things that we learn from the word of God. (the Word of God = scriptures + words of living prophets + personal revelation to you).
I’m discussing the scriptures in this context because many are adverse to studying the scriptures. People happily follow living prophets which is great (I’m one of the first to memorize talk summaries etc) but living Prophets don’t constitute all of the Word of God.. (again, the Word of God = scriptures + words of living prophets + personal revelation to you). The Church is doing a great job at getting people to study the words of living prophets eg 2nd & 3rd Sunday third hour meeting lessons. There is a lack of studying the scriptures….President Monson in his last conference addressed even politely asked members to “please do so”, if they weren’t reading The Book of Mormon everyday. Anyone who has made temple covenants will know that studying the scriptures is part of keeping those temple covenants. Anyway, the goal is to receive our calling and election made sure. Knowledge of and obedience to ALL of the Word of God is necessary to realize this blessing. The Gospel is comprehensive, and this certainly isn’t the forum to cover all the intricacies of the Gospel such as principles that seem to collide etc. Have a nice day.
Great article and really interesting comments. Another facet of this discussion is when you have people who deliberately grandstand on topics to be provocative. They appear to show off their alternative or different viewpoints with great glee, and seem to thrive in making others feel uncomfortable by contrary views to accepted doctrinal understanding. It’s questioning gone rogue with a different intention.
I have experienced a number of people like this over recent years, most of them in the process of transitioning out of the church. To begin with I found this very unsettling and it made me angry and sad all at the same time. Now I just let it go. I don’t want to feel those emotions and it’s not about me, it’s all about them and their current journey. Fortunately (or unfortunately) our local Stake Leaders have a fair bit of experience in this type of conflict and they have been kind, compassionate and reassuring to all.
I think this except from a recent address may answer some questions & concerns…• DESERET NEWS CHURCH NEWS
Overcoming perpetual doubt:
Elder Renlund shares the importance of choosing faith
Teachers must help their students “be believing” as they address questions of faith and doubt in their classrooms, Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught during a broadcast for seminary and institute instructors held on June 12.
“The message that we have is ‘doubt not, but be believing,'” said Elder Renlund.
Speaking with his wife, Sister Ruth L. Renlund, in the Conference Center Little Theater in downtown Salt Lake City — and to thousands of instructors in 150 countries around the world after being translated into 40 languages — the couple explored how choosing faith, rather than doubt, is how individuals — and those they teach — are able to come unto the Savior.
“Faith is a choice that each person must make,” Sister Renlund said. “Faith is not just whimsically wanting something to be true and fancifully convincing yourself it is.”
Faith is an assurance of the existence of things not seen in the flesh, and it is a principle of action.
“For faith to grow, one must choose to have faith,” Elder Renlund said. “One must desire to have faith. One must act in faith.”
Rather than focusing on the improbable, or questioning if something is impossible, it is important to think things “may be possible.”
“When you start with the question, ‘Could these things not be true?’ it leads to faith,” Sister Renlund said. “If you start with the question, ‘Could this not be false?’ it leads to doubt. And doubt never leads to faith.”
Sharing the experience of a man who was a “perpetual doubter,” the Renlunds spoke of how he went from one topic to the next, resolving one and then doubting another topic.
“What [this man] was doing was an ecclesiastical form of whack-a-mole,” Sister Renlund said. “You know the children’s game where a mole pops up from a board and as soon as you hit it another mole pops up in another place.”
“Doubt is not the precursor of faith,” Elder Renlund said. “Light does not depend on darkness for its creation.”
To have a question about the Church and its doctrines is not a problem, the Renlunds taught.
“Choosing to be a perpetual doubter is the problem,” said Sister Renlund.
That is why a believing heart and a mind desiring revelation from God are necessary to receive answers from God.
https://www.ldschurchnews.com/global/2018-06-13/what-seminary-teachers-need-to-do-to-foster-faith-in-the-classroom-47353
I love these ideas. Some time ago as a stake leader I taught a Relief Society lesson in a branch in which we discussed unity. We discussed a growing concern that soon many younger people are not interested in organized religion, and wondered how we could reach them. One sister offered a comment with unconventional ideas about how to attract younger investigators or less-active sisters, and another sister began a dialogue with her asking what she meant, etc.
I allowed them to continue this dialogue, as they both were being respectful as they tried to understand each other better which I think is a good example of one step in trying to become more unified. We closed with a few more comments and a quote from Pres. Eyeing about the Holy Ghost and his unifying power.
I thought it went pretty well, but I later received an email from a sister who chastised me for allowing a spirit of contention into the room.
Based on this experience, I believe that as a part of this seeking to feeling psychologically comfortable, we need to do a better job of helping folks see that having and voicing differing ideas does not mean the person is attempting to introduce the spirit of contention or take away from the lesson. If we dont allow questions and ideas to be voiced without judging the person who is stating them, we are producing our own contention. Thanks.
So glad to read this. I offered a differing opinion once in RS and only felt the Spirit leave when the teacher took it upon herself to become angry and start yelling at me! So it wasn’t the words or the thoughts that made the Spirit leave in my opinion, it was the feeling behind the words. Needless to say, I felt mortified. I still have a testimony but not much of a desire to go to my ward.
In the “do it” Church generation perfectionism and and a lack of diversity existed. Questions were not understood as an acceptable way to learn. Conformity and peace at all costs thrived in a culture that did not allow or encourage the exercise of agency. Identity politics ruled by traditions, policies and practices. Every one had a place. Male, female, old, young, bond, free. Now we are learning to disagree appropriately (understanding with a loving heart, and calmly respecting the healthy tension in differences in one another) recognizing differences do not always mean disloyalty, and counseling together. We just might become a Christlike people. BE ONE=ministering as Christians
Discussions? All we do in councils is take turns reading from conference talks.
I’ve had a few occasions where I was shouted at during a discussion. I’ve since stopped making comments during lessons. The orthodox members are not tolerant of uncorrelated thought.
The Neil L. Anderson (Neil A. is a misspelling) quote at the beginning of this article never alludes to contention being norm or beneficial. Rather, it merely refers to stimulating discussions and class member involvement. Contention is not helpful, nor is it constructive.
We are seeing fad/false philosophies in the Church now and then—sometimes even marketed by our own outlets such as Deseret Book. This article is another miss-vectored voice.
Contention does not vet truth; it does not build, clarify, edify. It should have no place in gospel teaching and learning.
To propagate a fad or false philosophy requires something: You have to leave the cannon. In this case, a brief referring to 3 Nephi 11:29 would have addressed the issue in the scriptures’ characteristic beautiful, crystalline-clear way.
All this is why I’m not a fan of blogs—even some LDS ones. I much prefer the words of our prophets, called & ordained special witnesses, general auxiliary leaders, Church magazines, and those Four Amazing Volumes.
Uh-oh, I misspelled it also!
Neil L. Andersen
I would offer that there is a fundamental difference between “conflict” (which this article addresses) and “contention” which I think most everyone in this thread (including the author) agrees is not in harmony with Gospel learning and teaching.
Mic drop quote from the Prophet Joseph regarding councils and conflict: “the reason why men always failed to establish important measures was because in their organization they never could agree to disagree long enough to select the pure gold from the dross by the process of investigation.” Council of 50 Minutes. :-).
https://www.ldschurchnews.com/archive/2016-12-29/select-the-pure-gold-from-the-dross-joseph-smith-on-inspired-councils-45204
Hi everyone! Last Sunday, a sister became sad after our Relief Society Class. Feeling worried I asked her why she looks sad after the class. And she explained, she did not like other sisters share something that is not part of the topic. And she suggested that I should cut her off if the out of topic. She even convinces me that it is the responsibility of the members and teachers to really have a great discussion based on the topic only. She felt bitter and was expressing her disappointments.
Please let me know if what I shared to her is correct.
I explained to her. I don’t want to cut off someone from sharing her thoughts during the class. Members from different lifestyle, life experience, and circumstances understand the lesson based on these. And their thoughts should be important to us. We asked members to speak out, to share and discuss. And we even told them “There are NO CORRECT OR WRONG ANSWERS” just to encourage everyone to share. So, if somebody asks a question or share something different from your views, do we cut her off from talking? I think NO.
We should learn to listen to people and allow discussions that who not always agree but discuss.
I really like the comments and the blog. I also learned something.
Seems like you said the right thing from my perspective Mari. One thing we all struggle with is how people can view something so dear so differently. If we weren’t interested in a collaborative community where we believe revelation is scattered among us, then why do we engage in anything on Sunday besides the sacramental ordinance.
It sometimes makes us uncomfortable to hear perspectives, thoughts, and life experiences vastly different from our own, but it is in the process of mourning with those who morn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort that we begin to love as Jesus loved and support each other through this crazy thing we call life.
What I am hearing is that it is important to be seen and heard.
Just knowing that can bring a sense of belonging and kindness. Being heard, hopefully not with the intent of contention or put down of others but with a sincere heart to seek a better understanding from both sides is like missionary work among ourselves
Seekers Wanted by Anthony Sweat was insightful reading