1st Complaint/Concern (or, I Must Be Doing Something Right)

I wrote about this a bit on one of my alterno-Mormon Facebook groups and got a lot of awesome feedback.  Moments like this make me truly love the internet and the connections I've made in so short a time with other Mormons who are struggling with official Church policy and history.  Also, I'm pretty sure Husband likes not having to listen to me go on and on about this stuff because he's 1 of only 2 people I can talk with about it.

So, as I wrote previously, last week I gave a lesson that wound up turning into a lively discussion about faith and doubt.   Friday morning I opened up my email at work to find the following email from a member of our Bishopric:

I took some time on this before coming to you.

I want both understand your perspective and elaborate further on what I shared in class on the topic of doubt. I was surprised that you responded that you disagreed with my comment. I probably didn't explain well.

What I said in class is that when speaking about doubt it is important to separate in our minds the concepts of being inquisitive and being doubtful. I paraphrased scripture "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you" to emphasize the Lord's desire that we question and learn. I also said that faith and doubt are opposite to one another, and that we should not be doubtful, but only faithful and inquisitive.

Doubt is a natural part of our experience in life, but the gospel of Jesus Christ does not encourage us to doubt (or accept doubt). Please review the topic "doubt, doubtful" in the topical guide and take a sampling of some of the scriptures there. Note that the antonyms are "belief" and "faith" and the synonyms are "unbelief" and "unbelievers." In the scriptures you'll find that the Lord invited those He blessed to believe and not doubt. He invited those he taught to replace doubt with faith (which is why I commented that doubt and faith oppose one another). Think of what He said to doubting Thomas when he appeared to His disciples following His resurrection...

Additionally, we are not taught in the church to respond with doubt when we receive a blessing, follow leaders' counsel, pray for answers and guidance, study the scriptures, etc. We are taught to be faithful, believing, trusting, and hopeful.

Doubt is a frustration to progress and it is a tool of the adversary. He is the father of lies and seeks that we stumble and remain confused. Doubt is not an attitude of questioning to learn, it is questioning because of mistrust or confusion or sin. God has no part in doubt.

It is also important to recognize that we are learning line upon line. This requires patience that we do not know all things, like sister _________ commented. But which person will learn more quickly, he(she) who doubts because of what he(she) does not know, or he(she) who presses on in faith, believing that truth will eventually form a unified circle in his(her) mind? No matter who we are, doubts will come, but we must quickly replace them with faith or we shall stumble.

Doubt often implies mistrust. Heavenly Father does everything to inspire faith within us. All things in the gospel are set up so that we learn to whole heartedly trust in Him. He leads us along the way with blessings and enlightenment. The scriptures provide real answers to life's questions and trials. He reveals His will to all those who come unto Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit. His plan is to exalt us because of the love He has for us. Who is more deserving of unwavering faith and trust (James 1:5-6)?

You said you disagree with what I said. I've searched the scriptures carefully this week and I feel to stand by my comment.

Please make sure that teachings in gospel doctrine are supported by scripture and words of the prophets. There are many new converts and often we have investigators. You have a strong testimony and set a great example of faithfully seeking the Lord, but we have many who are tender and just starting out. I hope you can see the danger concluding that it is okay to doubt, which was the conclusion that I took away from the class.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. You are highly appreciated for your willing service and contribution. Your leadership in gospel doctrine has proven most effective and helpful in inspiring gospel learning.

Again, the sure and safe way is to support teachings with scripture and words of the prophets. My intent in approaching you is more out of concern for what our new and tender students are taking away from the class if too much time is spent on opinions.

Please forgive me if I'm coming off bold. I hope you know I love you and appreciate what you do. Gospel doctrine is not an easy class to lead, especially when students come unprepared and opinionated.

Thanks for considering my thoughts. Feel free to share your perspective and I'd be happy to meet with you to discuss further if you wish.

Best regards,

Good thing my boss was away and I didn't have too much to do because I was able to spend a little time crafting a response.  I understand what he's saying, of course, I just don't see it the same way he does.  I've known this guy for a few years, and he's nice, with the best of intentions, and gives his all to the ward.  He is excessively earnest.  I appreciated his hedging his comments by saying I shouldn't take it as a personal attack, and that he does want to understand my perspective.  I did not appreciate the implication that my methods might lead others astray.

I wrote something, sat on in for a little while, edited it, and wound up sending this toward the end of the day:

I knew you were not pleased by what I had to say in response to you. I'm sorry if my comment came off as harsh toward you, that wasn't my intention, though sometimes it's easier to be blunt with someone I'm more comfortable with. The reason why I couldn't just nod and agree with what you said is because I believe that doubt and faith can co-exist. I can tell you that they co-exist in me right at this moment, and I am pretty sure I am not alone.
 

Perhaps that is not the ideal state of being. The ideal state, as you said, and as the scriptures say, is to banish all doubts and to just have faith. Sometimes that is much easier said than done, and our purpose is to work through our doubts and struggles and to strive for that ideal. The concept that I was trying to get to when corralling everyone's opinions, is that ultimately we have a God who loves us and a Savior who died for us, and when we start with that foundation, we can move forward from there despite whatever doubts or struggles may plague us. I've always seen a testimony as a wave, ebbing and flowing. Sometimes we are so absolutely sure and secure in the Gospel. Other times it is more difficult, to use a familiar metaphor, to see the iron rod for the mists of darkness. We work to keep our testimonies at that strong and secure level, but it's not always possible, and sometimes we falter.
 

One of my goals in teaching is to try to let people know that they are not alone and that they are welcome even though their knowledge and trust in God or the Gospel is not absolutely sure.
 

I believe you left before the end of the class, thought I may be wrong. If you did, then you did not see how it all wrapped up with my thoughts on trusting in the Savior in times of hardship, and how in the end all things, the good and the bad, will help us to become more like Him and will work for our good (D&C 98:3, Romans 8:28, D&C 90:24).

 

I read something about doubt and faith a couple of days after that lesson that really resonated with me, and that I wish I had read before the class, if I had had any idea the class would take the direction it did:
 

"We also need to stop thinking of doubt and faith as diametrically opposed to each other. I believe that doubt and faith are opposed in the same way our thumb is opposed to our fingers; they work together, testing and trying each other, pushing faith to seek a witness beyond itself, to become humble, and to find that there are answers not yet considered. We must teach how to process through the complexity and to see the beauty in the nuance."
 

 

That's not from scripture, or a current leader of the Church, but from another faithful member of the Church who also struggles now and again with doubts.
 

 

It's heartening to know that doubt holds no place in your heart and mind, but I cannot say the same. Yet I am faithful. I have faith and continue to do my best to turn to God when I do feel doubt. I admit, I am not perfect and sometimes doubts can be at the forefront of my mind. But I continue to come to church and serve my brothers and sisters because that's what I feel called to do.
 

I was thrilled with the discussion that we had on Sunday and think it does point out the varying levels of testimony, belief and knowledge that people in our ward hold. I was told by many people after that class that they appreciated the discussion, and I think for some people, knowing that they're not the only ones who don't know with an absolute certainty, is comforting. It means there's a place in the Church for them even if they are new, or if they struggle. Sometimes as a body of members, we can present ourselves as a monolith of certainty, and that can lead people who struggle to think that there's no place for them here.
 

I hope that even if you and I sometimes disagree on some of the finer points, that you will continue to offer up your comments, because I truly believe that our faith can be strengthened when our assumptions are challenged. Mulling over the idea of faith and doubt over the past week, which I have been doing as well, has helped me to explore my feelings about it. Honestly, I don't think our perspectives are so very different. I also believe that it is important to have faith, and I believe that it is important to work through doubts with faith. I think we can both agree with Elder Holland's talk from the last conference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng#5-10785_000_51holland, particularly his mention of the scripture in Mark: "Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief."
 

 

Best,

 

 

Saturday morning, I had this response from him:

 

 

How about if explained this way...?

 

Faith and doubt are opposite attitudes in an approach. It is not possible to respond to something with faith and doubt simultaneously. Faith and doubt produce two different outcomes in the same circumstances. Lehi's sons quest for the brass plates in the BoM teaches this rather clearly.

 

Faith and doubt are equally accessible to us at any given moment, and in that light I agree they coexist. The same can be said of good and evil. But you can only choose one at any given time. You get to choose which attitude rules in your approach. You can even start by using one and then changing to the other before seeing the thing at hand through, but only one can work at a time.

 

I agree that if we measure the entirety of our lives that we would conclude that we have acted in doubt and in faith. Is that what you mean?

 

What struck me the most about this response is that he's trying so hard to reconcile our points of view.  He really is a nice guy, and I'm sure it's troubling to him that I just didn't absolutely agree with his initial email.  He's concerned because to a correlated Mormon it's probably very important that we see things the same way.

I haven't responded yet, but will probably write something like "Yes, that's a good way of looking at it" and be done with it.

When I sent him my initial response, it occurred to me that I didn't really care what happened next.  Unless he wanted to meet to discuss my wayward thinking, which would have been boring and not something I would be interested in at all.  But, really, the options are (1) we agree to disagree slightly (2) he feels the need to reconcile our points of view so that he can feel comfortable that there is no disagreement, which is kind of what he did in the email, and I'm not interested in continuing any sort of argument, so that's likely where we'll stay, or (3) he recommends that I get released, which seems a bit extreme for him, and also is not likely something our bishop would agree to, if for no other reason than we're short-staffed as it is, and there's no one to replace me.  Also, because Bishop likes me (though he is completely unaware of my issues with the Church, so maybe he would like me less if he knew that).

So this was a pretty mild (and extremely earnest) complaint.  I received a bit of a boost on Friday night, though, when I went to a party and a couple who had been in my class told me how great it was and that they were still talking about it.  I mentioned to them that I had gotten an email complaint about my faith and doubt comment, without telling them in any way who it was from, of course, and they were floored.  They assured me they enjoyed the class.  I suppose you can't please everyone, it's just too bad when the person you don't please is the bishopric member overseeing Sunday School who thinks it's then his responsibility to correct me.  Hopefully there won't be too much more of that.

News Lately

I'm going to try to do a semi-regular/as it occurs to me post collecting the articles and other links I've read lately about Church matters.  Some of these may be critical of the Church, some not.  Some may be merely observational.  But for whatever reason these links impacted me.

So here we go.

1/8th of an Inch - Are we really using our resources in the best way possible?   (SPOILER: No.)


New Scripture Mastery - As I commented on someone's post about this, with the removal of some scriptures that highlight how we see ourselves as unique (stone rolling forth, baptisms for the dead, other sheep not of this fold, seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of God) I see the Church continuing its trend to make itself seem more like mainstream Christianity.  Someone else noted that memorizing a bunch of scriptures isn't "mastery" per se, but I would argue that although I don't feel like I've mastered the scriptures by a long shot, those 100 scriptures that I learned in Seminary have stuck with me.  To the degree that even in my current scriptures, purchased well after I graduated from high school, I have highlighted those scriptures.  By de-emphasizing certain elements, the Church isn't saying that those things aren't part of the doctrine anymore, just that they're not our focus anymore.  Weren't we supposed to be a peculiar people?  Personally, I'm fine with focusing on Christ and not necessarily the Church and its peculiar doctrines, I just think it's an interesting shift.

My Faith Crises - This really resonated with me, as this author, like me and so many others, feels vastly conflicting emotions when it comes to the Church.  Sometimes I want to just throw up my hands and ask, "What is the point of all of this angst?  Why do I put myself through this?"  Yet, here I am, in the Church, active, teaching.  For now.

Going to the Temple

On Saturday I had the opportunity to go to the temple as the escort for one of my fantastic former Young Women who is leaving on her mission next month.  Her sister went through at the same time and it was such a nice experience being there with them.  I felt so incredibly honored that she asked me.

For the briefest moment I hesitated, though, because of my issues with the Church in general.  Truth be told, I hadn't been to the temple in awhile, except to shepherd youth to do baptisms.  I actually worked in the temple for 2 years, and have a lot of good feelings associated with the temple.  When I went through for the first time, my favorite part was the initiatories (and this was pre-revisions).  I had no problem with what went on, but just felt extremely blessed.  The endowment was also a positive experience for me, and I left that first time bubbling over with a happy feeling.

I got very interested in genealogy and have a stack of blue and pink slips of paper representing my ancestors.  I don't really think that I literally need to have their work done for them.  However, I love the idea of creating this connection across many generations of my family.  As I've become more cynical about Church and the need for temple work, one of the things that has given me cause to mourn has been the loss of the urgency to do this work and connect with my ancestors.

The 2 years I worked in the temple wound up being such a saving grace for me.  A few weeks after my first shift as a temple worker, my longtime boyfriend and I broke up.  Plus, I was having a really hard time in graduate school, not exactly sure what I was doing there.  Working in the temple 2 Saturdays a month gave me a solid 10-12 hours where I could get out of my own head and focus on the patrons at the temple.  I saw that calling as an opportunity to ensure that the people I came into contact with were having a stress-free, uplifting experience.  In the process, I felt uplifted too.

There are, of course, problematic issues in the temple, which I have become more keenly aware of as my critical analysis skills have become more honed, and I've learned more about the troubling history.  I actually knew a guy in one of my singles wards who was an adult convert and came from a long line of Masons.  He said he had no problem with the similarities in the ceremonies, because they both came from ancient sources.  (Of course now I know that's a problematic argument since the Masonic ceremony isn't really all that old.)

I kind of like the idea that the whole endowment is more metaphorical than literal and that the point is to remind us of our covenants.  Still problematic for me, which I'll talk about a little later, but still a better argument than "This is literally what you will need to know to get past the guards at the gates of Heaven".

Despite all of this, I have been thinking that I should go back to the temple and see how it feels now, with my new angst and less starry-eyed view of the Church.  So when I woke up on Saturday morning, I felt excited.  It also seemed like a good opportunity for me because I would be doing exactly what I always liked so much about the temple, which is helping other people have a good experience.

Once we got to the temple (late and full of some drama, which isn't vital to this story, but which was proof to my YW's mom that the adversary was working against us), the first part of the day was lovely.  My YW and her sister were interviewed briefly by a member of the temple presidency to make sure all of their information was correct.  Then we were swept into the dressing room by several women temple workers, who prepped the girls for the initiatories.  I told my YW to listen to the blessings promised and told her that was my favorite part on the day I went for the first time.  Afterward, I helped her get changed into her dress and we all met with an assistant to the Matron, who gave the girls instructions about the garments.

(Note: According to our temple, the new official Church policy is that bras (and regular underwear) can be worn over or under the g's, according the the member's individual discretion.  I don't know if that really is being taught everywhere now, but she said that's how they have been told to instruct.)

Then the endowment session.  Which hit me with a big *clunk*. 

I've been through sessions, if not hundreds, then probably A hundred times, so I know it all pretty well.  Even though I felt moments of peace and what I would call The Spirit, so much of it seemed so odd.  Also, boring.  Also, "hearkening to my husband?"  As so many other women have stated, I don't need an intermediary between me and God, thanks.

My husband confessed to me before we went that it had been years since he had done a session because it just bored him and he thought it was weird.  I could relate to his position on Saturday.  Being there with my YW and helping her made it less boring for me, but when I think about going again and sitting there for 2 hours so bored, I just don't know if I can.

If it is all metaphorical, surely there is a less boring, shorter, and more efficient way to be reminded of our covenants and connect with our ancestors.

Afterward, when we were all in the Celestial Room, hugging and chatting quietly, I felt that peace again.  I truly believe that there is peace to be found at the temple because it's a place set aside as a holy space, for quiet reflection.  I have felt the same sense of the sacred and holy in a beautiful cathedral, and when we were in Ireland a year ago I felt a touch of that at Newgrange.

So like most things related to Church lately, I came away from the temple on Saturday feeling conflicted.  It was mostly a lovely experience.  So that's something, I suppose.

Lesson 28: O God, Where Art Thou

I still need to write about Lesson 26, and I didn't teach Lesson 27 because I was out of town last week, but I wanted to write about this one because it wound up being a really interesting discussion.  I know I'm not going to be able to capture what everyone said, but I want to write about it while it's fresh in my mind.

This was a hard lesson to prepare, not because I thought the church history or the Doctrine and Covenants sections used were uncomfortable, but because it was basically about suffering, and why we suffer.  I read a bunch of blog posts, articles and talks, and watched a couple of TED talks with suffering as a theme. Of course they all had strong lessons of rising above, but immersing myself in other people's pain is hard.  I spent some time crying this week.

I started out, as I always do, with some history, courtesy of Mormon Stories Sunday School.  Basically I read the first page from the Mormon Stories Sunday School reading notes, which itself quotes from Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations.  The excerpt talks about 1838, which sounds like a rough year for the early Saints.  While Joseph Smith and 5 other leaders languished in terrible conditions at Liberty Jail all winter, the rest of the Saint were driven from Missouri.  It was a lot of text to read aloud, but I wanted to lay the foundation and really paint the picture of how dire things were for the early saints and Joseph Smith.

Then we read D&C 121:1-6, the pleading prayer of Joseph Smith: "O God, where art thou?"

Next, the initial part of the answer, D&C 121:7-10

The goal is to keep the perspective of the eternities.  It's hard to hear "thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment" when we're right in the middle of them.

Our entire Sacrament Meeting had been about the Plan of Salvation, so I referenced that a couple of times and gave this quote from Neal A. Maxwell:

"Trying to comprehend the trials and meaning of this life without understanding Heavenly Father's marvelously encompassing plan of salvation is like trying to understand a 3-act plan while seeing only the second act."

I discussed how that's where we are, in the second act.  The 1st act is the set-up, the 3rd act is the resolution, but the 2nd act is where all the drama happens.

Next we read D&C 122:7-9

The next step in my lesson was going to be talking some about the Savior and how to approach adversity.  But here's where it got interesting.  One woman, who has had a tough year fighting cancer, talked about how the most important thing is not to doubt and to hold onto the iron rod.  To which a man in the back raised his hand and essentially said, "Yeah, I don't agree.  I doubt.  I have a lot of doubts."

Thus ensued an extremely lively discussion about doubt, about whether it's ok to doubt, what does it mean to doubt, etc.  It was fantastic!  I told them all, I have doubts too.  But here I am.

(Later on, I told my husband, "Maybe we should have him and his wife over for dinner and talk about doubting...?")

I said two things that might have ticked off a couple of people, but oh well.

One man (who's now in the Stake YM presidency) talked about how important it is to always remember a couple of things when we have doubts - the church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet.  As long as you remember that, you can go forward from there.

Ha!  Given the angst I've been having lately about Joseph Smith, I just couldn't let that lie.  So I basically said, I think for some people, you might even need to be more basic than that.  For instance, something as basic as "I believe in a God who loves me," and go from there.

At one point, our former EQ President said something about not thinking that doubt and faith could co-exist.  That we can be inquisitive, but that's different from doubting.

I said flat out that I disagreed with him.  I told him that I liked the nuance of calling it being inquisitive, but I definitely think doubt and faith can coexist.  (He clenched his jaw and didn't seem thrilled about that, and soon left the room, though that may have been completely unrelated.  Hard to say.)

There were so many good comments about how to approach your own personal searching.  I did my best to corral everything generally in the notions of, we're all on our own paths, if we are open to the Spirit we will find our course.

At that point I had 10 minutes left and was way off my lesson plan, but I was so glad we had that discussion.  Discussions like that make it clear that everyone really is at their own spot in belief and faith and, yes, doubt, and we can all learn so much from each other.

So I turned to the end of my lesson and asked, "What's the point?  Why do we have these struggles and doubts?  Why do we suffer?  To use a trite phrase, why do bad things happen to good people?"

I fully admitted that I do not have the answer, at least not a satisfying one.  But I have a couple of ideas.  I think part of it is so that we can be like the Savior.  He suffered and died for us, and he understands like no one else the pain that we go through.  The experiences that we have in our lives give us the ability to look to other people who are suffering and to give them empathy, and to reach out to them.

I read a quote from Anne Morrow Lindbergh, as quoted in Neal A. Maxwell's talk "Enduring Well".  First, I explained who Anne Morrow Lindbergh was, and how her 20-month son was kidnapped and killed.  She said:

"I do not believe that sheer suffering teaches.  If suffering alone taught, all the world would be wise, since everyone suffers.  To suffering must be added mourning, understanding, patience, love, openness, and the willingness to remain vulnerable."

This is such a powerful lesson. You can suffer, but the goal is to learn through that suffering.  To come through the other side and see your fellow human beings suffering and reach out to them because you understand.

We read Doctrine and Covenant 90:24 and I focused on the phrase "All things shall work together for your good."  All things, both the good and bad, ultimately work for our good. They make us the people who we are.

I closed by quoting a gospel song from the 1950s:

Well, I started out travelin' for the Lord many years ago
I've had a lot of heartache, I've met a lot of grief and woe
But where I would stumble, then I would humble down.
And there I would say, I wouldn't take nothing for my journey now.

I wouldn't take nothing for my journey now.  ITNOJC, Amen.

Priesthood and Gender Issues

On Sunday, Sacrament Meeting was all about Priesthood.  I told my husband thank goodness it wasn't the previous week because I would have just stood up in Sunday School, said "Ditto" and instructed everyone to talk amongst themselves for an hour.  Also, surely the Youth are sick and tired of The Priesthood by now.

Anyway, the final speaker was a guy I like a lot, and have worked with in the Youth program before.   He's married with 3 kids and always seemed to be unconcerned with gender issues, and deferential to my years of experience in YW when he first got called to YM.

However, at the tail end of his talk, he said, "Some people have asked me why women in our church don't have the Priesthood."

'Oh no...", I thought.

My husband and I glanced at each other and husband whispered to me, "Why would he even go there?"

He proceeded to then talk about different roles and how his wife is a better nurturer than him, etc., same old, same old.

I said to husband, "And he's not doing a particularly good job with it..."

We both sat there, a bit uncomfortable.  Thankfully, he finished quickly.

But seriously, why would he go there?  For the people in the ward who are content with women not having the Priesthood, it didn't do anything except confirm their own feelings.  For those of us who are not so content, it was just annoying, patronizing, frustrating, [fill in your own adjective]. 

It's not a satisfying answer to say men and women have different roles.  OK, that's fine, but the problem is, women have no real leadership roles.  Women have no real say in the way the Church is run.  I don't need to be a Prophet(ess), but I would like to know that a woman could.  Just like I don't need to be President of the United States, but I guarantee I will probably shed a tear when a woman is finally elected to that office (no matter how much I gripe about what she does or doesn't do in the following 4 years).

It's not about power, it's about women's voices being heard.  Really heard.  Without the knowledge that any decision made by a woman could be trumped in 5 seconds by a man in a higher position than her because he has the Priesthood.

A lot of people, a lot of liberal people even, will say we need to wait and figure out what Priestesshood means before bestowing it upon women.  That it's not useful to give women a male Priesthood.  While that may be true, it's not my biggest concern.  My biggest concern is equality.  As long as women do not have the Priesthood, institutional gender inequality will be a part of the Church at its most basic level.

In other religions male and female pastors and priests do not minister in the same exact ways.  (For that matter, 2 individual people of the same gender do not minister in the same way.)  I'm sure there were some growing pains in those churches when women were first ordained, and there probably still are in more conservative circles.  But the point is, all opportunities are open to women in those churches.  I want a church where I am equal, not separate but equal.  I'm so tired of the linguistic gymnastics that are required to explain (not very well) why "preside" doesn't really mean "preside".  Somehow saying a man presides, or a man is the head of the household, doesn't mean the man has the final say and the man is in control?

I call BS.  That's exactly what it means.  And some bad men have taken that so seriously that they have become domineering tyrants with their Priesthood.

I realize those men are not using their Priesthood correctly, but when I have enlightened female friends of mine getting involved with good Mormon boys who DO think that Priesthood means they are in control, even here in the liberal northeast, then I start believing those sorts of power grabs and unequal relationships are more common than I think.

In our Church we're taught that men have the Priesthood and women do not.  Men preside and women do not.  Men can be prophets and women cannot (except, you know there were prophetesses in the Bible, right?). 

I've noticed the inequality more and more as I progress in my career.  In the real world, men and women are finding a way to treat each other as equals.  There is still a long way to go and things are by no means perfect, but I am respected for my work and my intellect regardless of my gender.  I have been in rooms where I am the only woman or one of a few women and have felt treated as an equal.  If I work hard enough, I could be a Partner, a CEO, a President.  The glass ceiling exists, but at least it's not institutionally enforced like it is in the Church.

I fully admit I don't know what Priestesshood means.  Part of me thinks there shouldn't even be a delineation in duties, because it would be a way to throw the feminists a bone, but keep real power in the Priesthood, rather than in both the Priesthood and Priestesshood.  Like, for example, in this past General Conference.  Yes, 2 women prayed (whoopty doo.  Part of me marveled at how ridiculous it was that we were so excited that 2 women said a prayer in Conference).  But then a lot of the rest of Conference was spent telling the feminists to simmer down.

Yeah, that's how you lose people.  That's why the Church is hemorrhaging members, particularly young female members who have been raised in a post-feminist society where they can be whatever they want to be.  Except at Church.

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 25: Priesthood, The Power of Godliness

I told my husband recently that even though being the sole Gospel Doctrine teacher can be a pain and can be tricky with my current Church issues, for the first time ever, the 2nd hour of church is interesting to me.  Maybe everyone else is bored, but since it's my show, I have to be on for the whole hour.  As a pretty solid introvert, it's definitely never boring for me.  Exhausting, yes.  Boring, no.

That said, I warned him that this week's lesson would probably be pretty boring.  I took a very standard approach with this lesson, even utilizing the manual for some bits (shocker!).  I blame the fact that we were out late Saturday night.

First, I put the timeline of the restoration of the Priesthood and the offices of the Priesthood from the manual on the Board, then went through it quickly with the class.  One thing I've noticed more and more is how true the "line upon line, precept on precept" concept is (And now you have that Saturday's Warrior song in your head.  You're welcome.)  Really, though, with this Priesthood restoration timeline, or the Word of Wisdom implementation and enforcement timeline, it seems that there really is an order to things and that God's expectations of us are gradual and measured.

(The cynical side of me whispers, "It's just more bureaucracy and an effort to more fully control the members!".  Or "They're just trying to cover their tracks when they realize something doesn't work/want to exert more control!"

At this moment in time, I prefer to be optimistic, so I'm going with the line upon line explanation.)

Next, we talked about the differences between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and the responsibilities of each (D&C 107:1-6, 8, 13-14, 18-20).  I then broke the class into groups of 2 or 3 and had them read scriptures and then teach the rest of the class about the responsibilities of the offices of the Priesthood, from Deacon to Prophet.  The manual suggested we do this for the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, and the Seventies, but I thought it would be good to discuss for all of the offices.  As a non-Priesthood holder, I realized that I'm not really aware of the duties of the various offices.  I figured that my class of mainly recent converts probably wasn't either.

After that, we read and briefly discussed the oath and covenant of the Priesthood (D&C 84:33-44), and then the lovely verses in Section 121:34-46 about the responsibilities of the Priesthood (ie, serve others, no unrighteous dominion).

So that was it.  Pretty plain vanilla.  At the end I bore my testimony of Priesthood holders who really do magnify their Priesthood.  I talked about how in our ward especially I have had so many opportunities to observe men who take the responsibilities of the Priesthood and truly serve others and do their best to act on behalf of God.  I talked about the examples that they are to me.  ITNOJC Amen.

I feel that as a middle-class white woman from a traditional nuclear family it has really been a learning experience serving in my ward, mostly made up of people below the poverty line, immigrants in various stages of legality, and many single-mom households.  At times it has been exhausting, but I know there are many men in the ward (my bishop for one) who give everything they can to help others, and I believe those men really do see their Priesthood as a call to serve. 

Of course, the women in the ward also do the same.  I guess that's just because we women are angels already and don't need to Priesthood to inspire us, right?

I found myself thinking about the feminist issues as I prepared for this lesson.  Someone in one of the alterno-Mormon Facebook groups I belong to challenged those of us who had this lesson this week to counter any Motherhood/Priesthood comparison with the question, "But what about Fatherhood?"  Since I'm the teacher, initially the thought of doing this made me feel queasy.  I'm vocal about my confusion and doubts to a very select few people, and I felt like saying something like that would cross a line into an uncomfortable place that I'm not quite sure I want to go to yet.

Also, my father-in-law (from Utah!) was visiting...

I thought about it a lot during the week, and finally decided that I would be comfortable saying essentially the following if the comparison came up: "That comparison doesn't sit well with me, because it leaves out the role of fatherhood. We have a Heavenly Father, not a Heavenly Priesthood-holder. I think that fatherhood is just as important as motherhood. Also, it's problematic because not every worthy woman has the opportunity to be a mother, but every worthy man can be ordained to the Priesthood as young as age 12. Some women never have children because they either don't have the opportunity to get married, or due to issues of infertility, or myriad other reasons. Ultimately, I think the answer to the question of 'why don't women have the Priesthood' is, we don't know. The Church has been set up in this fashion for now, and that's the system we operate under."

I also thought about throwing in examples of women giving healing blessings in the early church, or mentioning that in the temple women do use the Priesthood, but wasn't sure I felt comfortable with that.

In the end, the issue never came up.  Of course, as the teacher, I could have steered it that way, but I really wanted to verge on controversy only if it came up organically.  My ward is pretty apolitical and most of the political issues involving the church aren't even on most members' radars.  I should have figured it wouldn't matter, but I'm proud of myself that I came to a point personally where I would have been comfortable saying something a little rebellious, something slightly scandalous.

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 24: Be Not Deceived, but Continue in Steadfastness

Wow, did I hate this lesson upon first reading.  Basically, this lesson asks us to talk about the reasons people leave the Church and get all judgey about how silly those people are, while we shake our heads and make tsking noises at their shortsightedness.  Seriously, 2/3 of the lesson asks us to talk in painful detail about well-known apocryphal stories from Church "history", highlighting the myths that people leave because of pride, because they're offended, or because they want to sin.

Except, the stories in this lesson are either not true, or at the very best could be called half-truths.  

And, of course, the lesson doesn't express the real reasons people leave the Church, because that would mean actually talking about those reasons. (A friend of mine told me she used some information from the Why Committed Mormons Leave presentation, and I really need to ask her for details about how that went down.)

I put a lot of thought into what I would teach because I knew I needed to get outside of the manual and figure out a different direction to take in order to not feel like a complete hypocrite by the time I was done teaching.  My first stop was the Mormon Stories Sunday School blog and podcast, where I printed off a bunch of talks, plus the reading notes that Jared Anderson prepared (Thank you!).  After reading through the materials, I decided rather than talk about apostasy, I would instead talk about discernment and personal revelation.  It's really not a big leap, given the actual scriptural texts in the lesson, and it was something I felt comfortable doing.

If you're looking for a more direct discussion about deception and apostasy, without skirting the issue like I did, fmhLisa prepared a great lesson outline for By Common Consent.

I wrote out my lesson in meticulous detail, because I wanted to stay focused and I didn't have a printed lesson to rely on. (Also, there are a couple of very vocal people in the class who don't always stay on topic, so I wanted to make myself a clear road map.)

Since I started teaching Gospel Doctrine a few weeks ago, I always like to start with a little history to place things in context.  I read the following,which I poached from the Mormon Stories Sunday School reading notes, after first explaining that Levi Hancock was a recent convert to the Church:

Then one day three elders—Edson Fuller, Heman Bassett, and Burr Riggs—visited the home where Levi was working. He had not met them before. They preached and baptized in the area. Then the three elders began receiving revelations and seeing angels while falling down and foaming at the mouth. Burr Riggs jumped up and down, swung from the roof's crossbeams for a few minutes, and then fell down as if he were dead. After an hour or two he awoke and prophesied about what he had seen while unconscious. Edson Fuller fell down and Heman Bassett imitated a baboon. He testified that an angel had given him a revelation, and he read it to his companions. Levi was confused. These things seemed ungodly to him, but he had never experienced such dramatic manifestations. He concluded that perhaps he was not as pure as the other elders. He didn't dare question them for fear that would be doubting the Holy Ghost. Similar experiences continued through the winter of 1830 and 1831. Oliver Cowdery had led his missionaries to Missouri. Joseph remained in New York. He had sent John Whitmer to preside over the hundreds of new converts in Ohio. Even so, they lacked experience and leadership, and it showed. Whitmer was bewildered at what he found: Saints pretending to fight with Laban's sword or sliding across the floor like snakes, saying they were on their way to preach the gospel to the Lamanites. When he returned from Missouri, Parley Pratt visited the branches of Saints in Ohio and saw some swoon, fall into what he called "ecstasies," make unnatural gestures, and claim revelations and visions that did not teach anything sanctifying. "In short," Parley wrote, "a false and lying spirit seemed to be creeping into the church." He recognized that this infection had occurred while the Church in Ohio was without discerning leadership, between the time he and his companions left and Joseph arrived. Harper, Steven C. (2010-11-01). Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants: A Guided Tour Through Modern Revelations (Kindle Locations 3229-3255). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

I discussed these odd manifestations briefly with the class, and highlighted that Levi Hancock didn't question them initially, even though he felt uncomfortable, because he was new to the Church and thought the other men knew better than him how to discern things of the Spirit.

Then we discussed Joseph Smith's resulting inquiry and the revelation of Doctrine and Covenants Section 50, which has the following introduction:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, May 9, 1831. Joseph Smith’s history states that some of the elders did not understand the manifestations of different spirits abroad in the earth and that this revelation was given in response to his special inquiry on the matter. So-called spiritual phenomena were not uncommon among the members, some of whom claimed to be receiving visions and revelations.

We read verses 1-24 of Section 50 as a class, which is a big chunk of scriptures, but important to the idea of discerning the things of God.  Then I pointed out that all of the members of the Church who experienced these manifestations were probably good people, who thought they were being guided by the Spirit.

The big question is, how do we know what is good and what is evil?  Or, how do we know what is good and what is better?  How do we know the things of God?

I opened these questions up to the class, who responded with answers like prayer, scripture study and the Holy Ghost.  I then read the following quote from President Uchtdorf:

"You actually have a powerful companion and trustworthy guide in this ongoing search for truth. Who is it? It is the Holy Ghost. Our Heavenly Father knew how difficult it would be for us to sift through all the competing noise and discover truth during our mortality. He knew we would see only a portion of the truth, and He knew that Satan would try to deceive us. So He gave us the heavenly gift of the Holy Ghost to illuminate our minds, teach us, and testify to us of the truth. 

The Holy Ghost is a revelator. He is the Comforter, who teaches us “the truth of all things; … [who] knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.” 

The Holy Ghost is a certain and safe guide to assist all mortals who seek God as they navigate the often troubling waters of confusion and contradiction. 

The Witness of truth from the Holy Ghost is available to all, everywhere, all around the globe. All who seek to know the truth, who study it out in their minds, and who “ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, [will know] the truth … by the power of the Holy Ghost.” 

And there is the additional, unspeakable Gift of the Holy Ghost available to all who qualify themselves through baptism and by living worthy of His constant companionship."

We had just had a confirmation in Sacrament Meeting an hour before, so I was able to point that out and discuss receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.  

Next, we read Moroni 7:15-17 and discussed testing our choices by the results they give.  Does something ultimately bring us closer to Christ?  Then that's the path to follow.

Question: What do we need to do to receive personal revelation?  How can we prepare ourselves to receive personal revelation?

D&C 112:2-3, 10 (Have humility)

Ether 12:27 (Have humility and faith, acknowledge our own weaknesses)

D&C 64: 8-10 (Forgive others, be in the proper frame of mind to be open to the Spirit)

Quote from Elder Nelson:

"To access information from heaven, one must first have a firm faith and a deep desire. One needs to “ask with a sincere heart [and] real intent, having faith in Jesus Christ.”   “Real intent” means that one really intends to follow the divine direction given. 

The next requirement is to study the matter diligently. This concept was taught to leaders of this restored Church when they were first learning how to gain personal revelation. The Lord instructed them, “I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

Finally, I circled back to the Levi Hancock story about the visions of some of the early members of the Church.  Some of those members claimed to be receiving revelation for the Church as a whole.

D&C 43:1-3, 5-6 (Only the prophet can receive revelation for the Church as a whole)

Per Elder Oaks, Joseph Smith said, when asked how he could govern such a diverse group of Saints, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Elder Oaks goes on to say:

"As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules…. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."

I'm not saying we should look for exceptions to rules.  However, Heavenly Father knows us best.  He knows our own unique circumstances.  If we take our concerns and struggles to Him, He will help us.  I truly believe that Heavenly Father loves us and wants us to turn to him, even in all of our imperfections, rather than just give up.  We can take our struggles and questions to Him in prayer, and He will help us discern the things that are good and of God.  ITNOJC, Amen.

So, yeah, not too much about personal apostasy.  But I felt good about this lesson as I was writing it and as I taught it.  A couple of people came up to me afterward and told me they enjoyed it, so I figure that's a good sign.  We're supposed to teach to our class, right?  That's what I'm trying to do.