We Are Responsible For Our Own Learning

[The Folk Prophet]

My father-in-law and I were discussing this a bit today so I thought I'd share some of the thoughts.

Being responsible for one's own learning, at first glance, as it relates to the new home centered study may seem to relate to the lessening of church time, etc. But that isn't the case, I believe. Being responsible for our own learning is irrelevant to the teacher or the setting. We were responsible for our own learning with three hours of church. We are responsible for our own learning if there were twelve hours of church. We are responsible for our own learning in a formalized classroom. We are responsible for our own learning when alone.

But that doesn't mean that we learn of ourselves. The teacher in these cases still has a great role.

The greatest teacher, of course, is the Holy Ghost. Many times the Holy Ghost teaches through other means than directly to us, and it remains our responsibility to confirm those teachings by asking God, who in turn bears witness of their truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. But these teachings we have from prophets and the scriptures still came from the Holy Ghost in the first place (unless given directly by God of the Savior -- in which cases the Holy Ghost still certainly attended as witness).

But for a great many of us "things" we learn are not the key or point here of being responsible for our own learning.* At some level many, in life, will learn more than others of facts and figures and ideas and philosophies. This is the nature of mortality. We are not equal in all things, and some are more capable of learning this way than others. Does that mean those with more mortal brain power have a greater chance at salvation? Of course not.

In the introduction to the Come Follow Me manual the first page tells us, "Conversion Is Our Goal." It states, "The aim of all gospel learning and teaching is to deepen our conversion and help us become more like Jesus Christ... ...when we study the gospel, we're not just looking for new information; we want to become a "new creature"."

Indeed, the type of learning we are responsible for is not just book learning and smarts. It is, rather, the learning that comes from the Holy Ghost that is more than just knowledge. It is the light and truth of God that enlightens our mind and removes darkness from our understanding. It is knowing God. That is the learning of which we ought to primarily speak when we consider the responsibility we have for our own learning. It is our conversion, commitment, and faith that matters.

On the first page (as far as we got in our family study today) of the Dec 31-Jan 6 (I know...a day early... Sue me!) lesson states, we might ask ourselves the same question as Jesus asked of His disciples: "What seek ye?" What is it we truly, honestly, want to learn? First and foremost, for myself, I want to know God better. Or at least, it might be more truthful to say, I want to want to know God better. Truly.

I believe knowing God is the business with which we ought to be concerned when it comes to our responsibility for gospel learning.

 

* I say for most of us because I assume that most engaged in the new program will already know most of the "things" being taught.

Edited December 31, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

My hope is that we as saints can be more converted to the gospel. I also hope that we can arrive at a new perception of truth in how it's gained. Many of the simple truths of the gospel remain a mystery to the saints or even misunderstood. We are really well trained in giving what we think is the "correct" answer but I have found that in general we don't understand the very principles of the gospel. I often wonder if this change in home study is to get people to truly find the truth or prepare their hearts and minds for the truth as it is unfolded in days, months, and years to come.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We are really well trained in giving what we think is the "correct" answer but I have found that in general we don't understand the very principles of the gospel.

Being as you are part of the "we" you suggest here, how do you know that "we" don't understand the "very" principles of the gospel if, being part of the "we", you also don't understand the "very" principles of the gospel to know whether the "correct" answers are given with understanding or not?

 

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Being as you are part of the "we" you suggest here, how do you know that "we" don't understand the "very" principles of the gospel if, being part of the "we", you also don't understand the "very" principles of the gospel to know whether the "correct" answers are given with understanding or not?

 

I taught the basic gospel principles class for a number of years not to long ago and we had mostly well knowledgeable long time members in the class. I was surprised how different the responses were to very simple questions and in a lot of cases disagreement on basic principles- very basic misunderstandings of key words and principles. It appeared that generally everyone knew the seminary answer but when pressed they just didn't understand what they were saying. I ended up going through a massive internal analysis of this phenomenon myself and realized that I too didn't have correct understanding. Needless to say I have been in the basic gospel principles class now, whenever it is held, for the better part of two decades and I have restructured within myself a system of learning to find truth. Thumbing through the new manual for the upcoming year and my joy is bubbling over. Many of the same techniques are being introduced. We are basically going back to square one because we need to better understand how truth is gained and how understanding things is Paramount. There is no doubt in my mind that our hearts and minds are being trained and prepared to understand the purity and simpleness of Christ's doctrine, of the which we are barely scratching the surface. I do see a doctrinally shift ahead. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I taught the basic gospel principles class for a number of years not to long ago and we had mostly well knowledgeable long time members in the class. I was surprised how different the responses were to very simple questions and in a lot of cases disagreement on basic principles- very basic misunderstandings of key words and principles. It appeared that generally everyone knew the seminary answer but when pressed they just didn't understand what they were saying. I ended up going through a massive internal analysis of this phenomenon myself and realized that I too didn't have correct understanding. Needless to say I have been in the basic gospel principles class now, whenever it is held, for the better part of two decades and I have restructured within myself a system of learning to find truth. Thumbing through the new manual for the upcoming year and my joy is bubbling over. Many of the same techniques are being introduced. We are basically going back to square one because we need to better understand how truth is gained and how understanding things is Paramount. There is no doubt in my mind that our hearts and minds are being trained and prepared to understand the purity and simpleness of Christ's doctrine, of the which we are barely scratching the surface. I do see a doctrinally shift ahead. 

Therefore everyone pre-new-manual is doomed?

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Therefore everyone pre-new-manual is doomed?

No, we all need to relearn how we learn truth. How we learned in the past with mere memorization is not how we learn truth. What we studied in the past was memorization skills and not study skills. We think we knew the truth when in reality we just knew how to give textbook answers. So, we all going back to school to learn what "impressions" are, how the Holy Ghost "speaks", how to recognize and find "truth".

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

How we learned in the past [...] is not how we learn truth.

So everyone before didn't learn truth? Therefore...doomed?

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

What we studied in the past was memorization skills and not study skills.

Aside from getting into the semantics of what the real difference is or is not here, the implication is that good study skills are required or we're doomed. You seem to be saying that those who study better have a greater chance for salvation than those who struggle with study.

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We think we knew the truth when in reality we just knew how to give textbook answers.

And therefore...pre-new-manual...doomed?

[Traveler]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My father-in-law and I were discussing this a bit today so I thought I'd share some of the thoughts.

Being responsible for one's own learning, at first glance, as it relates to the new home centered study may seem to relate to the lessening of church time, etc. But that isn't the case, I believe. Being responsible for our own learning is irrelevant to the teacher or the setting. We were responsible for our own learning with three hours of church. We are responsible for our own learning if there were twelve hours of church. We are responsible for our own learning in a formalized classroom. We are responsible for our own learning when alone.

But that doesn't mean that we learn of ourselves. The teacher in these cases still has a great role.

The greatest teacher, of course, is the Holy Ghost. Many times the Holy Ghost teaches through other means than directly to us, and it remains our responsibility to confirm those teachings by asking God, who in turn bears witness of their truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. But these teachings we have from prophets and the scriptures still came from the Holy Ghost in the first place (unless given directly by God of the Savior -- in which cases the Holy Ghost still certainly attended as witness).

But for a great many of us "things" we learn are not the key or point here of being responsible for our own learning.* At some level many, in life, will learn more than others of facts and figures and ideas and philosophies. This is the nature of mortality. We are not equal in all things, and some are more capable of learning this way than others. Does that mean those with more mortal brain power have a greater chance at salvation? Of course not.

In the introduction to the Come Follow Me manual the first page tells us, "Conversion Is Our Goal." It states, "The aim of all gospel learning and teaching is to deepen our conversion and help us become more like Jesus Christ... ...when we study the gospel, we're not just looking for new information; we want to become a "new creature"."

Indeed, the type of learning we are responsible for is not just book learning and smarts. It is, rather, the learning that comes from the Holy Ghost that is more than just knowledge. It is the light and truth of God that enlightens our mind and removes darkness from our understanding. It is knowing God. That is the learning of which we ought to primarily speak when we consider the responsibility we have for our own learning. It is our conversion, commitment, and faith that matters.

On the first page (as far as we got in our family study today) of the Dec 31-Jan 6 (I know...a day early... Sue me!) lesson states, we might ask ourselves the same question as Jesus asked of His disciples: "What seek ye?" What is it we truly, honestly, want to learn? First and foremost, for myself, I want to know God better. Or at least, it might be more truthful to say, I want to want to know God better. Truly.

I believe knowing God is the business with which we ought to be concerned when it comes to our responsibility for gospel learning.

 

* I say for most of us because I assume that most engaged in the new program will already know most of the "things" being taught.

I believe this is a very interesting topic.  Have you consider the symbolic teachers represented in the temple?  And that Adam waited to be taught and was thus accused of "not believing anything that was taught".

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So everyone before didn't learn truth? Therefore...doomed?

Aside from getting into the semantics of what the real difference is or is not here, the implication is that good study skills are required or we're doomed. You seem to be saying that those who study better have a greater chance for salvation than those who struggle with study.

And therefore...pre-new-manual...doomed?

Humm...just looking at the track record, especially for men in the church, yeah, we are failing, something needs to change. Men, in large part, are not becoming converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In general though, our seminary answers only get us so far, it's good to know where to find scriptures, etc, but do we really understand Christ's gospel? Know it inside and out to where we can feel and know true principles? No.

As a matter of fact, in my priests quorum, we were discussing discerning the spirit and none of them really knew what it meant. That's troubling because I have witnessed them moving by the Holy Ghost and yet they don't even realize it. If they can't realize the impressions and feelings, how can they know truth?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Have you consider the symbolic teachers represented in the temple?

Not yet. ......considering.................................

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

And that Adam waited to be taught and was thus accused of "not believing anything that was taught".

I think that ties directly into the idea of where truth comes from.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No, we all need to relearn how we learn truth. How we learned in the past with mere memorization is not how we learn truth. What we studied in the past was memorization skills and not study skills. We think we knew the truth when in reality we just knew how to give textbook answers. So, we all going back to school to learn what "impressions" are, how the Holy Ghost "speaks", how to recognize and find "truth".

interesting - as a child that had problems paying attention - I quickly learned that if a Church teacher asked me a question if I just gave the answer as "Jesus Christ" I would be right as often as those paying attention and studying (as you say).  I have also learned that if anyone asks where Jesus performed any particular miracle - If I answer - "Capernaum"  I would be correct more than 80% of the time.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In general though, our seminary answers only get us so far,

But you seem to be implying the "seminary answers" are actually mistaken.

The plain ("seminary") answer of how we receive truth is not a mystery. We read scriptures. We listen to conference. We attend gospel meetings. We go to the temple. We ponder. We pray. We listen and obey.

I agree that application of these principles is inadequate and needs improvement by all across the board. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the answer itself is wrong.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I have also learned that if anyone asks where Jesus performed any particular miracle - If I answer - "Capernaum"  I would be correct more than 80% of the time.

Does anyone really believe that knowing where Jesus performed any particular miracle is of any real importance?

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But you seem to be implying the "seminary answers" are actually mistaken.

The plain ("seminary") answer of how we receive truth is not a mystery. We read scriptures. We listen to conference. We attend gospel meetings. We go to the temple. We ponder. We pray. We listen and obey.

I agree that application of these principles is inadequate and needs improvement by all across the board. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the answer itself is wrong.

I'll give you an example. So, as I was thumbing through the topics in the new manual the lesson on "Ye must be born again" kind of caught my eye. Most people in the church don't really know what this means. Sure, they know the seminary answers such as we must be born of water and the spirit. But beyond that they don't really understand. A rebirth signifies that until the rebirth we were once alive but then died. But what were we dead to? Many don't understand these details. Trust me, I know, I taught the class. We are talking about spiritual death in large part. Again- ask the class, "what is spiritual death?" They again give the seminary answer of "separation from God". The problem is they fail to understand the meaning although know the textbook answer. Spiritual death is being dead to things of the spirit- it's wickedness. The being "born again" means being made alive "again" to righteousness. A person who is born again is changed back into the being he once was when he was innocent as a child and connected with the spirit and righteousness. So, in reality, the answer of "separation from God" isn't really the definition of spiritual death but rather one of the effects of the death itself. 

You can pick almost any topic on the basic principles and run into this problem. A question I always like to ask is "why was Jesus baptized?" Many will give the textbook answer "to fulfill all righteousness". But then you press them and they don't understand. Jesus was baptized because it's a commandment and the way in which we enter into a covenant relationship with Heavenly Father. It had the effect of cleansing if one needs it. Did Christ need to be cleansed? No. Did he need to be baptized? Absolutely, otherwise he is unable to be obedient by not entering into a covenant relationship with the Father.

This is what I mean by knowing the answer but yet not understanding it and knowing the truth.

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

"Ye must be born again" kind of caught my eye. Most people in the church don't really know what this means.

I don't believe this. 

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Trust me

No thank you.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say you're exactly right on your view of spiritual death. Do you mean to say that everyone who fails to understand it "correctly" is doomed? If someone believes that spiritual death means separation from God (assuming you're correct that it doesn't, or that it's incomplete) then do they lose salvation?

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Jesus was baptized because it's a commandment

I'm pretty sure everyone understands this to be core to the meaning of "to fulfill all righteousness".

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is what I mean by knowing the answer but yet not understanding it and knowing the truth.

And yet... I must still ask: If someone knows Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and that they, being unholy, have much more need to be baptized, but fail to understand the as-Rob-Osborn-has-explained-it-bigger-picture, are they going to lose salvation over the matter?

If I am fully converted and committed to Christ's commandments, does a less than perfect understanding of the why behind those commandments make or break things? Am I less converted if my understanding is "seminary" level but I am fully engaged in obedience, humility, faith, and charity concerning those answers?

Edited December 31, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe this. 

No thank you.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say you're exactly right on your view of spiritual death. Do you mean to say that everyone who fails to understand it "correctly" is doomed? If someone believes that spiritual death means separation from God (assuming you're correct that it doesn't, or that it's incomplete) then do they lose salvation?

I'm pretty sure everyone understands this to be core to the meaning of "to fulfill all righteousness".

And yet... I must still ask: If someone knows Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and that they, being unholy, have much more need to be baptized, but fail to understand the as-Rob-Osborn-has-explained-it-bigger-picture, are they going to lose salvation over the matter?

If I am fully converted and committed to Christ's commandments, does a less than perfect understanding of the why behind those commandments make or break things? Am I less converted if my understanding is "seminary" level but I am fully engaged in obedience, humility, faith, and charity concerning those answers?

What was the motivation for why Alma and the sons of Mosiah taught?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So everyone before didn't learn truth? Therefore...doomed?

Aside from getting into the semantics of what the real difference is or is not here, the implication is that good study skills are required or we're doomed. You seem to be saying that those who study better have a greater chance for salvation than those who struggle with study.

And therefore...pre-new-manual...doomed?

If I am reading the code language correctly, what Rob is suggesting is that "we" will eventually come to view the gospel as Rob views it (because "we" will be using the learning method he has employed), or else....This, I am assuming, also applies to the leaders of the Church who have, and currently view certain key principles of the gospel differently than him.

My guess is that he will be sorely disappointed in the outcome of the curriculum change because, many of us, including Church leaders, have long taken responsibility for our own learning, and have increasingly come to view those certain things quite differently from Rob.

We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I am reading the code language correctly, what Rob is suggesting is that "we" will eventually come to view the gospel as Rob views it (because "we" will be using the learning method he has employed), or else....This, I am assuming, also applies to the leaders of the Church who have, and currently view certain key principles of the gospel differently than him.

My guess is that he will be sorely disappointed in the outcome of the curriculum change because, many of us, including Church leaders, have long taken responsibility for our own learning, and have increasingly come to view those certain things quite differently from Rob.

We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thanks, but no thsnks. You are missing the point I am making.

[wenglund]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thanks, but no thsnks. You are missing the point I am making.

That, or it is the other way around. We'll see--or at least some of us may see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That, or it is the other way around. We'll see--or at least some of us may see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, quick question for ya then- what happens if we fail to be born again. Without resorting to scripture apply your knowledge in your mind right now to what happens? 

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

What was the motivation for why Alma and the sons of Mosiah taught?

I think you didn't answer my question.

[wenglund]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

So, quick question for ya then- what happens if we fail to be born again. Without resorting to scripture apply your knowledge in your mind right now to what happens? 

Your question is tangential to the thread topic and to my comment, so I won't answer here. You are welcome to start a new thread and pose the question there, though I am not sure I will actively participate given the almost invariable counter-productivity of my discussing things with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think you didn't answer my question.

My answer is in getting you to answer, bear with me here.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Your question is tangential to the thread topic and to my comment, so I won't answer here. You are welcome to start a new thread and pose the question there, though I am not sure I will actively participate given the almost invariable counter-productivity of my discussing things with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

That's kind of what I thought you would say. Kind of proves my point.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

My answer is in getting you to answer, bear with me here.

Okay.

Then the answer to your question is probably Alma 31:5.