ldsguy422

We're too passive with how we regard spiritual matters. Many come to church with the mindset of, "Well, I'm here, now inspire me." We get constant reinforcement from the world. We need to counterbalance that with the  spiritual. I mean, the average person is awake for 112 hours in the span of a week. There's quite in an imbalance between the temporal and spiritual if 110 hours is devoted to work, chores, errands, recreation, etc - and just 2 hours is dedicated towards God. Two hours of church is not enough to sustain us through the week. 
Frequently you hear people say, "Well, I just don't have time to read my scriptures every day. Life is busy." Nonsense. Let's crossout, "I don't have time" and say what it really means: It's not a priority. I love watching my favorite sports team. Am I going to miss a single game they play? Absolutely not. I watch them because I make it a priority. Let's stop with the excuses and actually make gospel learning a priority.
Mosiah 5:13 "For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?"

I watch a lot of YouTube videos.  I mean, a LOT, and a large proportion of those are Star Trek related videos.
Yeah, I know, shocking.
Well I was watching one the other day by a YouTuber who also does a lot of political commentary.  I avoid his political content, partly because I'm trying to avoid politics in general but also partly because his commentary is usually pretty vapid and mindless.  His Star Trek videos tend to be much more insightful.
Well on this particular video, he was doing a Q&A and some fan wrote a question to the effect of "How can anyone support Trump AND like Star Trek?"  His reply was that he had no idea.  He wasn't saying that Trump supporters shouldn't watch Star Trek, but he just kept emphasizing  how he just doesn't know how that can work.  
And it got me thinking.  Ever notice how often people say "I just can't understand how you can think X, Y or Z.  I just don't get it."  Now, sometimes we say that and it's a legitimate expression of confusion.  "I don't know how you can think Star Wars is better than Star Trek.  Have you seen Jar-Jar?"  That's like an invitation to elaborate.  It means "please, by all means tell me what it is you see in Star Wars that resonates with you over the awesomeness that is Star Trek."
But that's not always how it's meant.  In examples like the one in the YouTube Q&A, and very frequently in debates, it's meant as a moral argument in itself.  Saying "I just don't get how you can both appreciate Star Trek AND like Donald Trump" basically translates into "My sense of morality and righteousness is just so well developed that I can't comprehend how your views can make sense in any context, so it's a mystery to me why we can share an appreciation for something like Star Trek.  See how virtuous I am?"   It's like that kind of confusion is taken as a positive.  "I'm too smart/wise/good to understand your perspective."
That's insidious.  It essentially equates the other view as being so flawed, so bad, so immoral that it isn't even worth the effort to understand it.  In fact,  not only is it not worth the effort, it would actually be a bad thing to try.
Now, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.  Maybe my introvert brain is overanalyzing something that's really a non-issue.  But tell me this:  Haven't we all seen this done?  "I just don't see how you can think that." used not as a way to prompt a more detailed explanation, but as a way to close off argument?  Doesn't that, broadly speaking, just translate into "If your argument/views/opinion made any sense I'd be able to understand it.  But since I can't, it must be wrong."
I dunno.  Sorry for rambling.  Maybe I'm losing my mind.

If you don't find her attractive, then I don't think it should be much a problem, honestly. That is why I said you can be friends provided 1. You don't hang out one-on-one or 2. You're not attracted to each other. You follow under criteria 2
 
Mercy. Calm down. My basic point, is that you can't be friends and hangout one-on-one if there is an attraction on either side. Of course you can still be friends with anyone and everyone. But one-on-one meetups with an attractive person of the opposite gender, especially when you're committed to someone else, is essentially a date. I'm pretty sure I could meet up with some female friends from college on a weekly basis and not break the law of chastity, or kiss, or hold hands, or even hug. But... I'm thinking I might start to develop some feelings. That is the pathway that should never start. 

Because they were from work. In other situations, they may have appealed to me. I could block attraction at work because it doesn't belong there.  If I met them other places, who knows what I would have felt.

"It never crossed my mind to find them attractive." Like I said, if you don't find them attractive you're hardly fitting the criteria that I mentioned.
Of course I still talk to attractive females on a semi-regular basis - work, church, double dates, moms of play dates for our kids, social gatherings, etc. But I don't ever go out of my way to have an extended conversation with an attractive female, go to lunch together, or anything else where it's a one-on-one situation. I would still consider many of these females my friends.  But, they're not friends I'm spending one-on-one time with, which is essentially a date. Our conversations are mostly on a superficial level, which certainly helps reduce any sort of emotional bond.
 It's not a commandment. I mentioned that it was simply solid counsel. If you don't allow yourself to be tempted, you can't allow sin to enter. Simple as that. 

"It never crossed my mind to find them attractive." Like I said, if you don't find them attractive you're hardly fitting the criteria that I mentioned.
Of course I still talk to attractive females on a semi-regular basis - work, church, double dates, moms of play dates for our kids, social gatherings, etc. But I don't ever go out of my way to have an extended conversation with an attractive female, go to lunch together, or anything else where it's a one-on-one situation. I would still consider many of these females my friends.  But, they're not friends I'm spending one-on-one time with, which is essentially a date. Our conversations are mostly on a superficial level, which certainly helps reduce any sort of emotional bond.
 It's not a commandment. I mentioned that it was simply solid counsel. If you don't allow yourself to be tempted, you can't allow sin to enter. Simple as that. 

If you don't find her attractive, then I don't think it should be much a problem, honestly. That is why I said you can be friends provided 1. You don't hang out one-on-one or 2. You're not attracted to each other. You follow under criteria 2
 
Mercy. Calm down. My basic point, is that you can't be friends and hangout one-on-one if there is an attraction on either side. Of course you can still be friends with anyone and everyone. But one-on-one meetups with an attractive person of the opposite gender, especially when you're committed to someone else, is essentially a date. I'm pretty sure I could meet up with some female friends from college on a weekly basis and not break the law of chastity, or kiss, or hold hands, or even hug. But... I'm thinking I might start to develop some feelings. That is the pathway that should never start. 

It's inevitable that we will all have moments where members of the Church will press our buttons in an upsetting manner. But I seriously doubt the majority of these people are trying to make us feel bad about ourselves. I'm sure a few of the culprits are lacking a bit of introspection, but my guess is that we're probably offended by our interpretation of what people say and do more than anything else. Sometimes members can come across as judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, pushy, insensitive, and cliquish.  It's human nature. And you know, we all say an do dumb things. I'm sure we've all had multiple encounters with people in the Church that have rubbed us the wrong way. But is it really that important that we're all consumed by it to the point that we're willing to lose out on eternal blessings? Hopefully not. I love the counsel given by Elder Bednar several years ago:
When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.
In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.
 

I will die soon, within about four decades at absolute most, and probably well before that. Maybe tonight. Who knows? And on that soon-to-be day when I stand before my Maker, I will show him a veritable litany of unfulfilled potential and wasted opportunities. How can I face him? How will I stand the shame? If I am to stand clean and justified before my Creator, I have only one possible hope.

It will make conversations with Antis a little easier. Would be funny to hear some say, "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't believe in Christ... Reply: Yes, and  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually hate animals. The Band-Aid company no longer provides band-aids. Burger King is discontinuing operations on all burger items. That makes sense, right? 

It will make conversations with Antis a little easier. Would be funny to hear some say, "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints don't believe in Christ... Reply: Yes, and  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) actually hate animals. The Band-Aid company no longer provides band-aids. Burger King is discontinuing operations on all burger items. That makes sense, right? 

Also, you don't need to teach the lessons in order.  If someone is really worried about logistics, perhaps have that lesson earlier to put them at ease.  If someone really wants to focus on a certain topic, don't be afraid to spend 2 weeks on it.  If the class has another lesson down pat, don't feel obligated to dwell unnecessarily on it. 

I think that I would talk about both the necessity for and the importance of symbolism. Important to use symbolism beach this medium communicates to:
all cultures, all levels of understanding, all cultures, continues to communicate over many decades of exposure
The temple HAS to be symbolic in order to communicate and teach all comers in all time periods. There is no other medium that can convey meaning to all and that continues to do so across the lifespan.

Let them do the talking.  
You bring a topic to the table, and make sure things don't go diving off the table, but otherwise let them do the talking.  What do THEY think?  What's going on with this in THIER lives?  What examples have they seen?  What struggles have they have?  What triumphs?

Have you been attending Teachers Council? https://www.lds.org/callings/teachers?cid=HP16TSW&lang=eng
Read EVERYTHING, Watch ALL of the video's. Attend the class that your Ward is supposed to have. You need to be more than familiar with the Curriculum so that you can guide them along. Our Seminary Teacher texts each of the students whether they are actively in her class or not. She sends them scriptures, about 30 minutes worth of reading, then encourages them to write down their thoughts in a journal. Doesn't matter if the thought they got was "I am hungry for pizza", write it down.
Granted she sees them 5 mornings a week - but she also interacts with them all week long, and she lays in wait to greet them every Sunday morning.
We have just had a change up with Youth teachers. Assigning two per class. In the past we tried Husband & Wife teams, and that fell flat. So now the husbands are together, the wives are together. Seems to be working better. They all are following in Seminary Teachers footsteps.
Remember, you are NOT a radio. Don't broadcast.
As for the part member families, what is the problem there? As long as you encourage correct DOCTRINE and PRINCIPLES, and answer their questions by quoting from the Scriptures - and having them read along with their scriptures - you should have no problems.
Oh, another thing the Seminary Teacher started and then the Sunday School President followed through with was: NO digital devices during any of the classes. Our little Meetinghouse Library has 14 quads - 8 Holy Bibles - 22 Books of Mormon- 10 Trips. Primary has their own Quads, Book of Mormon. So there is plenty to lend out for the Youth classes to read from.
Oh, another thing the Seminary Teacher started was for their homework they bring to her each morning, she wants it handwritten in cursive.
This year we had 8 graduate from Seminary. Those same 8 graduated from High School. Three of them are from inactive/part member families. All the parents attended Seminary Graduation (which was held 1.5 hours away in our Stake building) and the Sunday Sacrament after that, because all 8 talked at Sacrament.
Attend your Teacher Council. My husband is Branch Sunday School President, he has classes on the third Sunday of the month during 2 & 3rd hours. Don't even think of yourself as a Teacher, consider yourself a Leader. You lead them in the correct direction. Facilitator -
noun: facilitator; plural noun: facilitators a person or thing that makes an action or process easy or easier. "a true educator acts as a facilitator of learning" Because you know what the materials being presented will be, it will be a snap for you to guide it back into the correct direction. Also, one HUGE thing I learned teaching the 8-10 year olds, when things got out of hand, noisy, or where one was bullying the others - I gathered the bullied one to me, and asked this person to give a prayer for the Holy Ghost to come back to our class. To give comfort to ALL of us. To banish the adversary. I did this the first time out of total frustration. It worked. The bully behaved himself, those he had hurt were comforted and the Holy Ghost literally flooded the room.
Oh, also, assign one of the students to be the Facilitator each Sunday, and give them the topic/lesson materials. Then follow up during the week with them. Help them, encourage them. If need be go to their home and pray with them.
 
 
 

Here is my standard outline for lessons (primary, sunday school, priesthood):
* Remember you are discussing doctrine, not teaching a lesson!
1) Learner Readiness - this is an activity or something that will engage the class before jumping into the discussion.
2) The body is based upon principles and doctrines that have questions, and then allow the spirit to direct the discussion.
3) End with testimony
I have discovered, the more simple and targeted the discussion outline, the better the result.

I second @MormonGator's answer.  Focus first on getting to know them and their interests to break the ice first.  

Hi all,
I have a relatively new calling and I've been teaching the youth (ages 12-14) for the last month or so. Just looking for tips or suggestions on how you go about teaching the youth. How do you get them excited? A good portion of the class is coming from part-member families, and I sense that most of them aren't being taught in the home. One of the youth, for example,  didn't realize that Mormons are Christians. I've heard from a YW leader that two of them don't really like Church at all. But, if they're in class, that's at least a start, right? Even if they're not excited about class, I still have a chance to maybe inspire, encourage, or help them in some way. 
FWIW, I feel very confident in my ability to teach. But I'm used to teaching adults. I worry that I can easily teach doctrine that will go over their head, so I'm worried 1. that it's simply enough to understand and 2. that the class can be exciting and rewarding... Let me know if you have any thoughts on this matter. Thanks!
 
 

My dad taught me about the importance of good character, your word being your bond.  He taught me how to sacrifice because you should.
If you ask my kids what I've taught them, please ask in 20 years or so.  Not now.  Please.

It's inevitable that we will all have moments where members of the Church will press our buttons in an upsetting manner. But I seriously doubt the majority of these people are trying to make us feel bad about ourselves. I'm sure a few of the culprits are lacking a bit of introspection, but my guess is that we're probably offended by our interpretation of what people say and do more than anything else. Sometimes members can come across as judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, pushy, insensitive, and cliquish.  It's human nature. And you know, we all say an do dumb things. I'm sure we've all had multiple encounters with people in the Church that have rubbed us the wrong way. But is it really that important that we're all consumed by it to the point that we're willing to lose out on eternal blessings? Hopefully not. I love the counsel given by Elder Bednar several years ago:
When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.
In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.
 

It's inevitable that we will all have moments where members of the Church will press our buttons in an upsetting manner. But I seriously doubt the majority of these people are trying to make us feel bad about ourselves. I'm sure a few of the culprits are lacking a bit of introspection, but my guess is that we're probably offended by our interpretation of what people say and do more than anything else. Sometimes members can come across as judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, pushy, insensitive, and cliquish.  It's human nature. And you know, we all say an do dumb things. I'm sure we've all had multiple encounters with people in the Church that have rubbed us the wrong way. But is it really that important that we're all consumed by it to the point that we're willing to lose out on eternal blessings? Hopefully not. I love the counsel given by Elder Bednar several years ago:
When we believe or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated, snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.
In the grand division of all of God’s creations, there are things to act and things to be acted upon (see 2 Nephi 2:13–14). As sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father, we have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation.
 

Whenever I teach a combined Priesthood class with Elders and High Priests (30-50 present in the Chapel), I like to encourage those to sit closer. I'm not going to ask more than once, of course. No need to be petty. I just think it's easier to have a discussion this way. It's easier for those present to hear me if there's close proximity; it's also easier for those who make comments to be heard clearly. I know that when I'm not teaching, I feel more comfortable participating if the space between me and the teacher is reasonably close. I think it helps facilitate an active, vibrant discussion. Certainly there are more important issues going on in Church, but if I can create a better learning atmosphere for a class, then I will gladly do so. 

Yeesh.  Flashback to when I taught Gospel Essentials.  In attendance:
- A guy in the middle of a nasty divorce, including abuse allegations and custody battles
- A very, very single guy in his late 30's
- A sarcastic 18 yr old girl with one foot out of the church, there because mom still was able to force her to go
- A recent convert with a loud mouth and a ton of misinformation about our faith.
The lesson, of course, was The Family can be Eternal.  I had to teach these folks that we're all supposed to get married in the temple and have a perfect family, without insulting the single, destroying the guy getting the divorce, being the last straw for the young woman, or letting the loud convert take us all into the weeds.  I would have gladly given my right arm to swap with the Gospel Principles teacher and hide in front of 30+ people.  
The Lord seemed to let me take this without much in the way of prompting or guidance.  I think I did ok.  We talked about the "stereotypical perfect mormon family", and griped for a while about how it doesn't look even remotely like any of our situations.  Then we talked about why we teach that picture, if it's not something that seems to be in the cards for many of us.  Then, with the understanding that "try your best" doesn't mean "succeed or go to hell", we went through the lesson as outlined.  More than one of us had the puffy eyes before it was over. 
That was sort of my mount everest of teaching.  I think we all survived.  My first-and-foremost, above-all-else consideration, was love for each of these people, and as much empathy as I could summon.  I don't remember, or care, where they sat.

Whenever I teach a combined Priesthood class with Elders and High Priests (30-50 present in the Chapel), I like to encourage those to sit closer. I'm not going to ask more than once, of course. No need to be petty. I just think it's easier to have a discussion this way. It's easier for those present to hear me if there's close proximity; it's also easier for those who make comments to be heard clearly. I know that when I'm not teaching, I feel more comfortable participating if the space between me and the teacher is reasonably close. I think it helps facilitate an active, vibrant discussion. Certainly there are more important issues going on in Church, but if I can create a better learning atmosphere for a class, then I will gladly do so. 

Whenever I teach a combined Priesthood class with Elders and High Priests (30-50 present in the Chapel), I like to encourage those to sit closer. I'm not going to ask more than once, of course. No need to be petty. I just think it's easier to have a discussion this way. It's easier for those present to hear me if there's close proximity; it's also easier for those who make comments to be heard clearly. I know that when I'm not teaching, I feel more comfortable participating if the space between me and the teacher is reasonably close. I think it helps facilitate an active, vibrant discussion. Certainly there are more important issues going on in Church, but if I can create a better learning atmosphere for a class, then I will gladly do so.