Teaching By the Spirit

[Snow]

In the Joseph Smith thread we were discussing the acceptability (or non-acceptability) of varying from the text on the manuals when teaching lessons in Church. Of course it is all a matter of degree... unless you don't prepare in advance (as some/many don't) and simply read the text verbatim, you will vary from the text to some degree as guided by the spirit and as you toss in a few, or many, relevant experiences and personal insights that help to bring richness and texture to the lesson.

So the question is not whether one can vary from the lesson, but rather how much is acceptable.

An inexperienced cook with pull out the recipe book as follow it strictly, measuring with precision each ingredient and paying close attention to the timing and sequence of the recipe. On the other hand, an experienced cook will wing it. Today I am serving Oso Bucco (braised veal shanks) and roast corn salad for dinner. I've cooked both before. I don't need to follow the recipe. I glanced at a recipe to remind me of a few key principles and then I winged it. No two times do I ever cook the same meal the same way. I delight in the adventure of cooking unfettered by strict adherence to someone else's dictates and so do those that eat what I cook.

The Church's official Teaching Guidebook, which "is designed for all teachers in the Church" instructs us to teach as Jesus taught. It tells us to remember that you have developed many skills and abilities in our lives that will enable us to help others and that our special talents will bless the lives of those we teach. Obviously we cannot employ our unique and special talents unless we individualize the lessons we teach.

The Guidebook says to focus on the main idea to be taught, study the supporting ideas and suggests that we use materials not in the manual including scriptures, stories, talks, magazine articles (from Church sources), Gen Conf talks, and things we have experienced or learned in our own life... and that's what I do. I can read a manual lesson in 7 minutes as can anyone interested in the manual lesson. However when I am taught, I want to experience a well prepared lesson as mentions here above.

As it so happens, the Bishopric just called and asked me to speak in Sacrament next week. I mentioned in the previous (Joseph Smith Lesson) thread that if someone is Sacrament meeting gives a talks and simply parrots back a General Conference talk, I likely won't pay attention. So my assignment for next week is to speak on a General Conference talk from this April's General Conf.

Irony eh?

I have my pick of talks - anyone have any ideas?

So far I have my eyes on Elder Oaks and Hales Saturday afternoon talks on Testimony, Elder Nelson's Sat AM talk on Salvation and Exaltation, or Elder Steuer's talk on The Power of Truth and LIght (Sunday PM).

Suggestions?

Of course, and this goes without saying, I'll use the selected talk as a jumping off point. I have some thoughts on the Vikings or Incas I'd like to work in...

[Moksha]

Sounds like whatever you come up with, it will be original thought and not just parroted expressions. Wish you were in my ward.... In my ward I would like to see a talk involving the beatitudes and how they come into play in our lives. How about your ward members? Would that be a welcome treat too?

Vikings, eh? Anything involving plates of Reformed Runes?

[miztrniceguy]

snow, these are the reasons my wife stopped teaching in RS, as she taught by the spirit, and the manual, not just the manual. she was chastised 2 times from ward rs presidency.

i also dont give talks in church anymore, as i dont want to rehash the same talk a GA gave in GC after 2 speakers before me do the same with the same talk. why do we need 3 people to rehash 1 talk? we can all read the ensign.

[Snow]

Sounds like whatever you come up with, it will be original thought and not just parroted expressions. Wish you were in my ward.... In my ward I would like to see a talk involving the beatitudes and how they come into play in our lives. How about your ward members? Would that be a welcome treat too?

Vikings, eh? Anything involving plates of Reformed Runes?

Beatittudes?

That sounds like an excellent idea - you do something with both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple from 3 Nephi.

[Misshalfway]

Parts of this thread make me a little sad. I know that not everyone who speaks in church is the best orator or the most insightful or entertaining speaker. But, there are miracles that happen when the weak things of the world preach the gospel. I think that what we get out of our meetings is generally a reflection of what we put in.

I think that we need as much exposure...even repetitive exposure to the conference talks as we can. Yes, we can all read and study the Ensign. But I can't deny that many of my prayers and spiritual needs have been addressed by the talks in sac meeting.

[kona0197]

I'm on Willow's side on this on. You should stick to the lesson manual. remind me to never visit Snow's ward. I might be led astray.

[sixpacktr]

Interesting. In my last ward we decided as a Bishopric to focus on the previous conference talks, but that the speakers were to use them as a reference and not recite them. Caused all types of heartburn with some. To me, it is easy. If Elder Oaks spoke of Pornography, don't read his talk. We can watch BYUTV to see it again. Rather, use it as a jumping off point, find other references, use your own experiences, etc., and show why the talk was relevant to you and what you have learned/can teach us. I do the same here in the branch we are currently in. To me, the GC talks should be the focus of our attention for the next 6 months, as they are the latest revealed words from the prophets to us.

But you are 100% correct. Don't just read what someone else has written down. I love it when I get to substitute in BOM SS class. Since I'm over SS, but don't have ot prepare, I can go off on any tangent I want since I don't have the manual. And the Spirit has really blessed me with insights while I'm teaching, some I share, some I don't.

[goofball]

I agree that some are naturally better teachers than others. I have fought myself debating whether to teach out of the manual, add extra material or do my own thing. I have come to the personal conclusion that it works best for me if I stick to the manual but add in stuff through my own preparing.

However what I HATE are those that stand up and say well please help me out because I just started preparing this last night. It is like a button and I tune out. Dont tell me even if it is true.

[Misshalfway]

There is wisdom in sticking to the manual. I must admit that one of my pet peeves is when someone says " the lesson manual says the subject today is X, but in my infinite wisdom I have chosen to talk on Y." Especially when lesson Y includes the gospel according to the teacher.

[Snow]

Parts of this thread make me a little sad. I know that not everyone who speaks in church is the best orator or the most insightful or entertaining speaker. But, there are miracles that happen when the weak things of the world preach the gospel. I think that what we get out of our meetings is generally a reflection of what we put in.

.

Why is it said?

I don't assume that you are moved by the exact same things that move some other people - are you?

I don't mean to say, and if I did, I apologize, that inexperienced speakers that rely on someone else's work are not doing well or that they can't give spiritual and moving talks - they just don't move me much, and some things that I find very moving don't appeal to some others.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'm on Willow's side on this on. You should stick to the lesson manual. remind me to never visit Snow's ward. I might be led astray.

I appreciate what you are saying Kona, but it wasn't meant to be about 'sides'. I was simply trying to point out that I teach the subject matter which I am asked to teach and which we have been instructed to teach by our Stake leaders and by our General Authorities in leadership training lessons. I totally agree with Snow's point that simply reading from the manual is not teaching the lesson. The manual is supposed to be read by the students at home. The teacher then uses his or her own study of the manual plus knowledge of the class and guidance of the Holy Ghost to encourage discussion amongst the class members on the particular matter covered by the lesson. Of course adding in personal touches which may include visual aids and personal experiences to illustrate some points makes the lessons more interesting and more memorable. That's why one of my lessons involved rice and ping pong balls. All I was saying was that we have been instructed to teach the subject matter of the lesson and not spend most of the lesson on some tangent which may have a connection to the subject at the expense of teaching the actual subject itself. Of course we should use quotes from the scriptures. We have been encouraged to do that and one of the things which I do first when I read through the lesson material is pick out the scripture references where appropriate and study those in context too, often have people from the class read those scriptures in the lesson.

Sacrament meeting talks are very different. For one thing we don't have audience participation so we don't get feedback and discussion which we are encouraged to have in class.

i also dont give talks in church anymore, as i dont want to rehash the same talk a GA gave in GC after 2 speakers before me do the same with the same talk. why do we need 3 people to rehash 1 talk? we can all read the ensign.

I've wondered about that too. There have been times when we've had the conference talk, then we've had a SS lesson about the talk, then we've had 3 speakers in Sacrament meeting talking about the talk. The conclusion I came to was that we must really need to learn something from that talk and the Lord must be determined to get it through to us one way or another. Maybe the more we 'switch off' the more he'll get someone to tell us again. Maybe it would be an idea if the 3 speakers were aware of what each other was talking on because I've known times when the final speaker has stood up and said "Well everyone else seems to have covered just about all of my talk already.", which is a shame.

snow, these are the reasons my wife stopped teaching in RS, as she taught by the spirit, and the manual, not just the manual. she was chastised 2 times from ward rs presidency.

Without knowing how much of the lesson subject was or wasn't covered in the lesson it's difficult to understand why she was 'chastised' but if she taught from the manual as led by the spirit and covered the subject without straying into too much non-connected stuff then I don't see why that should be a problem. We did once have a sister who was a philosophy student and she spent more time teaching us philosophy than teaching us the Gospel which did result in the RS presidency asking her to keep it Gospel centred.

The question Snow posed in the opening post was 'how much' and it's an excellent question. He mentioned in the previous thread that he had spent 30 minutes of his lesson talking about a subject which wasn't the lesson material and I personally feel that 30 minutes of something else in a 50 minute class (which also includes hymns, prayers and announcements etc) is too much because we have been asked to stick to the subject we've been given. That doesn't mean that I do not agree with him that there is scope for including little snippets which enhance the lesson material as guided by the Spirit.

Parts of this thread make me a little sad. I know that not everyone who speaks in church is the best orator or the most insightful or entertaining speaker. But, there are miracles that happen when the weak things of the world preach the gospel. I think that what we get out of our meetings is generally a reflection of what we put in.

I think that we need as much exposure...even repetitive exposure to the conference talks as we can. Yes, we can all read and study the Ensign. But I can't deny that many of my prayers and spiritual needs have been addressed by the talks in sac meeting.

I totally agree with you Misshalfway. I have so much admiration for those who struggle with nerves etc but get up there and do it anyway. I must admit that I am guilty of saying that I enjoy certain speakers in Conference because they give such entertaining talks but it's not supposed to be about entertaining us, it's supposed to be about us approaching the sacrament meeting with a willingness to be taught, even if we think we already know it all.

I do agree too that we only get out of Sacrament meeting what we personally put into it. It doesn't matter how entertaining the speakers are. It matters how open we are to being taught by the Spirit.

I was thinking about the repetative nature of some of the things we are taught and it came to me that the Temple Endowment session is exactly that. Each one is exactly the same as the previous one if we go for a whole week and do several a day. How many times have we been exposed to exactly the same thing? I have often found myself mentally repeating every line word for word. Maybe we need that.

[Elphaba]

As it so happens, the Bishopric just called and asked me to speak in Sacrament next week.

. . . .

I have my pick of talks - anyone have any ideas? Suggestions?

Well, Snow, you asked for it.

I realize I am probably the last person whose opinion you want when considering your Sacrament talk topic. However, you know me--I can’t let a good chance to give you my opinion pass me by.

I see an opportunity here to speak, with charity, both to those whose faith is strong, but more important, to those who yearn and struggle, but can’t seem to feel the spiritual connection necessary to do those things required of attaining salvation.

As you read my post you’ll know much of it stems from my own experiences. I grappled with, as young as I can remember to an older, yet very committed 25-year-old, who, no matter what I did, never felt any spiritual connection. And I strongly believe that in every congregation, there are at least a few Elphabas in the seats.

My suggestion is to take two points of Elder Nelson’s talk and show how they can be combined in a way that acknowledges everyone in the congregation, no matter where they believe they are in their road to exaltation.

If you were able to convey, to the CONGREGATION, how those whose faith is strong could recognize, and accept without judgment, those who are honestly struggling with their faith, Elder Nelson's words could be applied, in my opinion, to soothe the isolated and hurting heart of the struggler.

To illustrate, early in his speech Elder Nelson said:

“To be saved—or to gain salvation—means to be saved from physical and spiritual death. Because of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected and saved from physical death. People may also be saved from individual spiritual death through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by their faith in Him, by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of His gospel, and by serving Him.”

Elder Nelson speaks, correctly, of the members’ conduct necessary to attain exaltation, and I am fairly sure all members understand the context of his speech, as it is repeated so often in all Church venues. Additionally, much of the membership have a faith, somewhere from strong to firm that is personally indomitable.

But as I have mentioned already, I guarantee there are members in the congregation who do not have these spiritual experiences, who struggle for whatever reason, and feel isolated and confused because their commitment is real and they yearn for what others’ seem to have already attained: Faith.

Many members whose faith is strong simply cannot believe there are others whose is not. And very often these members quickly assume the struggler is not as spiritual, is not doing everything she is told to do, or is not being honest because they can’t believe her story, etc.

If you could explain that when a member of the congregation meets such a struggler, the first act should be complete acceptance of his/her story, it would help those who are truly willing to listen. Without this acceptance, including NOT telling him what he is doing wrong, then I think Elder Nelson’s words apply to ALL members of the ward.

Part of his talk addresses the family and I was especially moved by his words of how parents should address the struggles of their children.

Obviously I do not think of the strugglers as children, so I have tweaked his suggestions to address an adult; therefore, the words I have referenced are not verbatim. Obiously I find them profound and if applied by ALL of the congregation, could bring a semblance of peace to those who need it so much. For example:

To show your complete acceptance of the struggler, your love must be sincere and your acceptance “as is.“

When, if asked for, you do give advice, do it quietly, privately, lovingly, and not publicly.

If the person asks for more advice that may require judgment, base your teachings on divine doctrine and correct principles, and then show an increase of love promptly so that seeds of resentment may not remain.

If the congregation could comprehend how Elder Nelson’s words apply to its very own members who struggle, I think you could plant a seed in the minds of the members who have strong faith and therefore have not understood when others don’t.

An example could be a person who attends Church meetings, looking forward to the message, only to feel left out at the end. If such a person is approached with the love bolded above, (and below), and is convinced he/she is accepted by the congregation, and not considered unworthy, perhaps a very sore heart would be touched, and encouraged.

Though I've already quoted Elder Nelson's words, I want to emphasize them once more as to how to address someone who is struggling. Of utmost importance is that unless the person asks otherwise, he/she should be taken as is, and when the person speaks of the struggles, the members should do as Elder Nelson says:

“Show an increase of love promptly, [without immediately “thinking” how this person is not doing what he/she should be, and trying to determine what that is].

“When giving advice [if asked for], do it privately, lovingly and not publicly.”

“If giving instruction, when asked, that may be hard for the struggler to accept, show an increase of love promptly so that seeds of resentment may not remain.

Well, that’s it. I’m sorry I have rambled in a way that my post is jumping about. I’m still not feeling well and am not thinking as clearly as I’d like. Obviously this is a subject that moves me. But you’ll get the gist I’m sure.

With all sincerity,

Elphaba

[WillowTheWhisp]

That was brilliant Elphaba - you've given me a lot to think about there.

(Glad to hear you're feeling a little better if not 100% yet, hope you'll be up to par soon)

[Snow]

Well, Snow, you asked for it.

I realize I am probably the last person whose opinion you want when considering your Sacrament talk topic. However, you know me--I can’t let a good chance to give you my opinion pass me by.

I see an opportunity here to speak, with charity, both to those whose faith is strong, but more important, to those who yearn and struggle, but can’t seem to feel the spiritual connection necessary to do those things required of attaining salvation.

As you read my post you’ll know much of it stems from my own experiences. I grappled with, as young as I can remember to an older, yet very committed 25-year-old, who, no matter what I did, never felt any spiritual connection. And I strongly believe that in every congregation, there are at least a few Elphabas in the seats....

Holy Smokes Elp,

If I could do all that, they'd elect me archbishop.

That's for your thoughts and insights. I do appreciate it.

[kona0197]

LDS has a Archbishop?

[Palerider]

LDS has a Archbishop?

sometimes we have to eat some ice cream and chill.....i think he was joking...:D

[kona0197]

Sorry. Just a bit curious!

[Snow]

Whoosh!

[Moksha]

LDS has a Archbishop?

They are called Stake Presidents.

[Moksha]

I think it would benefit us to have Elf give us a sermonette more frequently. :)

[Snow]

So I gave my talk today.

My son was the youth speaker, my wife talked and then I did.

I didn't give any sort of greeting or introduction, I simply paused for effect and then started talking about Genhis Kahn and the Mongols. I then segued to the birth of the Inca Empire - Tawantinesuyo as it is called in the Inca tongue Quechua. I talked at length about the founding of the Empire under Manco Capac, the first Sapa Inca, the expansion of the empire under Pachacuti, how the empire grew to ulitmately encompass 2 million square kilometers and 20 million subjects.

Their lands stretched from Peru and Ecuador to Bolivia and Chile and Argentina.

They were rich, they were powerful, they had no known significant enemies.

This went on for a bit. Later my daughter in the audience said that folks around her were whispering, wondering why on earth I was talking so much about Incas.

Then I told of how Francisco Pizarro of Spain with his 180 men, 1 canon and 37 horses, in the battle of Cajamarca, defeated Atahulapa, his royal retinue of 3-4 thousand, with 80,000 Inca soldiers close by and 20,000,000 Inca subjects in the lands beyond.

How could 180 men, 1 canon and 37 horses overthrow one the world's greatest empires?

So now the congregation is into the story and really paying attention. Even the two sleeping guys in the congregation woke up and leaned forward...

The 20,000,000 subjects were subjects only, they were not true Inca. They not fully engaged in Inca supremacy and the Inca way of life. Their loyalty was but a veneer...

The Tawantinesuyo house was built on a foundation of sand. When the rains of adversity poured down and the floods came, they were washed away by a committed and determined enemy.

Today we face another adversary, One who, to paraphrase the Psalmist, would shift us as chaff in the wind.

If our commitment to Christ and our faith in the gospel is but a veneer will be like those about whom Matthew talks: “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”

I then referred to Elder Dallin H. Oaks conference talk on testimony. Building upon his discourse on scientific knowledge versus spiritual truth I touched on epistomology, the study of knowledge and how we know what we know.

I talked about Alma, faith, and wove in Elder Oaks central message on developing and sharing testimony.

I'm always taking a chance when I push the non-gospel discussion so far, so the pivot point when it loops in the gospel has to be dramatic and effective. After my talk the Bishop got up and said to the congregation that he must be getting smarter because he understood everything I said... I had taken Elphaba's advice and tried to make the message more accessible. Apparently my last talk in this ward was a bit esoteric.

After the service many people came up and told me how much they enjoyed the talk - that they learned things they had never heard before. The Bishop's wife said she wished we could lessons taught like that. I was asked for copies of my talk, etc.

I may not pack 20 minutes of solid gospel in my lessons or talks but if people I can help people gain a single insight about the gospel, something they can remember weeks or years later, that's all I can ask for.

[Moksha]

Thanks for the update. Wish I could have heard it.

[WillowTheWhisp]

It sounds like a fascinating talk. My late husband would have enjoyed that. He was very interested in the ancient American civilisations. I had not realised Pizarro's army was so small in comparison. A great analogy regarding the loyalty (or lack thereof) of the 'Incas'. In many ways similar to the Roman empire which did not consist of Romans but of many nationalities. I wonder how loyal they were in comparison when faced with opposition? From history books we don't often get the true perspective.

[WillowTheWhisp]

“And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”

That's a scripture worth remembering when people criticise LDS members for their 'works' too. The Saviour is saying that the non-doers, but hearers only, are the ones who will fall. - something else to think about.