I then retired to my room and listened to the talk twice. I had a hard time with this talk, and disagreed with the delivery a little. To me this talk felt like it was promoting blind obedience, which I believe is wrong. It felt like it was trying to discourage critical thinking, which I also disagree with. When it states the claim that the LDS Church is the only true church on the face of the earth, I dont disagree, but I do believe it is not the only way to heaven, or the Celestial Kingdom. Christ taught: " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 and surely the LDS Church does not own rights to Jesus. People of all walks of life can and have experienced him, and his love. His atonement is for us all.
I believe that we should learn what we actually do believe in. I think its important to know the church history, to know who we are, from whence we came. Its important to learn from past mistakes to avoid making them again. Its important (in my opinion) to know the good and the bad, so that we can weigh them together, and seek spiritual confirmation for ourselves and establish convictions of these things rather than settle with beliefs. Also, I believe it is important for when we are faced with the bad in conversation, or links sent to us from people with bad intentions, we can already have a knowledge and opinion of such things. If we hide all the ugly under the rug, when it comes out to a teenager who does not have knowledge, but just beliefs, it may be too heavy to handle. There are gads of youth leaving the church because of such things. It is an important issue.
I also disagreed slightly with her order of operations, she states "We have a knowledge of these things, but do we believe them?" I felt it should be, "We have a belief of these things, but do we know them?" I agree it may be silly to debate this, because its practically saying the same thing. I just always was taught that belief comes first, then confirmation, and knowledge.
I really did not know what to do, or how to teach this talk. Part of me wanted to pretend a kid was sick and stay home, but then I didnt feel right about doing that to somebody. I then realized I was being overly critical, and that I was looking at the talk wrong. I listened a third time, and this time tried to have a different perspective. I looked for good things, things I agreed with and believed. I did so, and there was a lot there. I was actually a little surprised by the contrasting difference. I decided to focus on these things and teach the lesson accordingly.
I planned on the lesson going like this:
- Talk about the claims of the Church. Admit that I have had questions before, and that this is ok, that we should seek further light and knowledge and truth, and find out if you truly are converted. Questions lead to study, which leads to answers. Surely studying it out in doctrine / scripture is better than not questioning and just obeying or believing because thats what the Church claims. True conviction comes from study ("you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right" D&C 9:8) You do the work, God gives you the answer. We dont get something for nothing.
- Talk about true conversion. Focus on the story of King Benjamin's people and their change of heart. What does "no more disposition to do evil" mean?
- Talk about how to keep from Drifting, discus what drifting is. "...Are we ever guilty of being complacent..."
- Bear Testimony
This is not quite how it went, however. As I started the lesson, I admitted that I had a hard time with this talk. Maybe this is where it all started to go downhill, because as I understand it, it made people feel rather defensive. I was not out to get anybody, or to say the church was wrong. This was not my intention. I started to get into the first bullet point above, and then discussion started, and remained in this bullet point for most of the meeting, when I never meant for this to be the focal point of the lesson.
I did try to promote discussion. I addressed the fact that church history is not squeaky clean. I addressed that because I felt its important to know about, have an opinion on / understanding of, for reasons I mentioned previously. I then tried to illustrate that there are things that are just anti-Mormon, that is deceitful and malicious and full of lies and bitter people who are out to tear down a good thing. There is plenty between the lesson manuals and that Anti-level however that is worth knowing about and learning from. I labeled it as "controversial" because it is stuff that gets you to think critically, form an opinion on, and decide what you believe. You can then ponder it, and take it to the Lord.
I think that the understanding some people had was that I was suggesting we read anti-Mormon literature. This was not at all what I was saying and I tried to clarify as much. Things that make us question and think in this controversial section to me are not anti-Mormon. There is lots of facts in here. Polygamy is controversial. Blacks in the Priesthood is controversial. In deep doctrine a lot is found that could be labeled as controversial. Birth Control, second comforter, 'calling and election made sure' are all things that are considered controversial. Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Hugh Nibley, John Pontious, and other great men often force you to delve into this controversial area to learn wisdom. There is great value in it. Surely there is much more value in the blue area than the yellow as illustrated above, but this is the weighing of the good and the bad that I talked about. I believe there is value in both. The teachings of Prophets are often times uncomfortable and unpopular. Its supposed to be that way. We are to stand out and not be part of Babylon. (or the world)
The comment was made near the end of the lesson "My mission president told us to avoid Anti-Mormon literature as if it was pornography" and I agree! That red area should be avoided! Its malicious!
The comment was then made "The Church is perfect but the members arent" which I countered with "The Gospel is perfect but the church is not." This ruffled a few more feathers. I believe this comment may have made people feel uneasy, but unfortunately it is true. If the church were perfect, Christ would not need to come and set it back in order. If the church were perfect, we would be living in a zion society. All men would know Christ, and there would be no room for error. The church is not perfect. We as a people are under condemnation for rejecting the law of consecration. That is in the scriptures. We put all of our trust in the arm of the flesh, and dont focus on personal relationships with the savior nearly enough. We allow others to do the work, and we lay back and live the easy gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was never meant to be easy. It takes work, it takes study, it takes time invested daily in the scriptures. A comment was made "We need to be reading the book of mormon every day." and I agree! "Every day, every day, every day!"
I then stated that the church is run by men, who are imperfect by nature. Mistakes are made from time to time. Men are weak. Men have opinions and beliefs that may from time to time vary with one another. We are imperfect beings. The comment came (rather loudly) "The Church IS perfect!" and at this point I sensed that people were really getting defensive here. I tried to simmer it down, but people were on edge. I guess people dont like to be challenged, they dont want their view of this perfect church to be altered.
Cognitive Dissonance is a real psychological event that takes place in our brains. When we hear or read something that agrees with or supports our beliefs we feel good. When our beliefs are challenged, we are met with a resistance, a bad feeling, a conflict. We then at this point must weigh the evidence, and decide based on evidence, or ignore evidence and choose which belief we will keep. Faith definitely plays a part here as well. It is never easy to have a root belief challenged. If you sincerely believe the church is perfect and find out that its not, that there have been mistakes, Prophets saying past Prophets were wrong, etc. then you feel this uneasiness. I believe that this explains what these people were feeling. I was trying to get them to be open minded and think critically as I believe this is important.
2 Nephi 28 reads: "21: ...others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell."
"24: wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!"
I believe that this false security that the church is perfect is dangerous.
There was some more commentary, and it went to and fro. There was a short debate over wither going to the Mountains was an appropriate replacement of going to Church. 9/11 was brought up. Somebody shared that all of his acquaintances who took to learning deep doctrine ended up leaving the church over petty things. I cannot accurately recall everything that was said and discussed, but there was some very off-topic discussion. I had little to no control over this.
In an attempt to get back on track and end the lesson with somewhat of a conclusion and hit the other points on my agenda, I read a few verses in Mosiah and closed with a quick testimony. At this point I felt tension in the room. Part of me feels I succeeded in getting people to think critically, and to maybe be a little more open minded. I hoped to renew in them a desire to study and learn and know truth, and seek true conversion. I fear, however, more people got caught up on their interpretations of what was said and did not allow themselves to leave defensive mode. Some of the comments made were more at me trying to give me advice, suggesting I was off. Some people said there is no value in study, that we are happy in the green area and we have a Prophet and that as long as we heed him we are ok. I believe this is dangerous. I believe this attitude itself is not following the prophets. We can receive confirmation and revelation just as Prophets do, and are commanded to do as much.
Joseph Smith said this: "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world."
“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him … from the least to the greatest"
I believe that being idle is dangerous. I agree with the talk that we need to have the experience that King Benjamin's people had. We need to have a mighty change of heart and no more disposition to do evil. We need to wake up, and really have our feet planted on solid ground. We need to be wise and have our house built on a sure foundation. To do this, we need to realize that this really is all true! We really are in a probationary state to prove ourselves to God. We really do need to know what we believe, and to KNOW through the spirit. Great challenges are ahead. We are in the last of the last days. Our Prophets have told us as much. We need to be spiritually ready, we need to know what we believe, and we need to know the Lord. This is my testimony.
"I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of godliness." - Joseph Smith
