Close Topic Options

It Is Not Important For My Salvation... - Page 3

You are absolutely correct. The person saying that might be right. There is a lot in the scriptures that really isn't important for our salvation. Most of it is vital for our exaltation. It is vital to our exaltation to find out for ourselves what Joseph Smith meant in the King Follet discourse. It is vital to our exaltation to ensure that all of our ordinances are valid, that we fully understand the temple ordinances, and that we have a correct understanding of our relationship with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

We are so quick to judge that some of the "deep" doctrines are not necessary for us. We cannot attain exaltation without a full understanding of all things. So, putting it off until "eternity" is the lazy way, and the lazy way will never take us to exaltation.

So, I think you are right to "delete" the answer. Just recognize that if you want an answer, there may not be any mortal person who can give you that answer.

Salvation My Important Not It

Thats so true Nighthawk sometimes I'm sitting down in Sunday school and I ask a question and I feel the piercing eyes of the teacher telling me to keep quiet you know what am I saying? I love this gospel and I think we should all discuss openly these doctrines and if we dont know the answer then we seek, research, ask, etc you know what am I saying? The Lord says he will answer us if we ask in faith there is no scripture that says he cant or he wont or that its not important for our salvation. What a ridiculous way to try to say you dont know!

It Is Not Important For My Salvation... Studies Doctrine Mormon

Two situations where these sort of answers can come up: in large group setting (Sunday School, social setting, etc.), or small group (one-on-one...).

I am blessed with an ability to ask questions, so I rarely hear an unspecific and dismissing answer in small group, thankfully. So, I can't comment much on small group, other than give my opinion that the responder probably thinks that the listener, or more probably the responder themselves, thinks that he will never be able to know something like that in mortality. That might be accurate. But it is disheartening, either way.

In large group settings, here are my experiences with 'golden' answers:

When teaching youth, I have found them very useful. Youth are notoriously difficult to get them to open their mouths, especially at 6 AM. Whether they will really be judged or not, they don't want to give the wrong answer. But, I don't want to give them the answer, as if they were 5 again. So, I ask a question, where the 'golden' answer is an appropriate response, which 'tricks' them into talking, when I then ask 'Why?', 'How?', 'How much?', 'Who is...?', etc. At that point, I have them. They can't put their head back down and go back to pretending to sleep. As a useful aside, it actually gets them thinking, not only on what the real answer is, but also how to verbalize it. I could then go on to discuss and and ask questions about the personal and present applications from their answers. Some teachers think that is the real reason to teach. I just like to trick them.

Also, when teaching youth, not all youth have the hunger yet to really understand why. They are content with having a list of do's and don't's. Instead of deciding for them that they need more (which is the perfect way to get a teenager to never learn more), I am grateful that they have those answers. I can't change another person, neither can I directly instill a passion for learning why. Usually, I must simply wait for an event in their life to trigger a need for the 'Why' to become relevant. That is usually supplied. But, if they didn't even have 'golden' answers, there would be no where to start. Even with a need, they wouldn't even do those things, which everyone can agree are at the very least helpful, if not fulfilling.

There are adults with the same experiences or mindsets as the youth I have been mentioning. These answers are useful to them for the same reason.

In a class with varying levels of experience, a good teacher must be careful, and jealously guard his time. It is very easy to get so excited about the one that asks very provoking questions, and spend the entire time there. This can be dangerous, not because of any sort of relative valuing of doctrines, but because the calling contains instructions to teach certain doctrines, to all for whom the teacher is responsible. A mediocre, tired, or inexperienced teacher might perceive the questions of the excited person as intentional sabotage to their precious time. I have been caught in this trap, and had to apologize afterward. Saying that a doctrine is non-essential is a very easy way to cop-out of taking class time to discuss it. Another, more effective way, is to say that we just don't have time to cover that question now.

Another aspect of the class of varying experience is that there are those who have little to no experience with which to build a foundation. Often times, lesson manuals are built so that more interesting points of doctrine are covered toward the end. When more interesting questions are asked, the answer (or better, discussion) would require too much foundation building so as to not leave less experienced people behind. The teacher must make the decision. Whether the discussion is one that is assigned elsewhere in the manual or not, time is still an issue. Sometimes, a teacher can (and should, in my opinion) venture in to that discussion, leave some people behind, so that everyone in the class feels that their needs are being met. Unfortunately, that can not be every class meeting.

Sometimes a teacher feels inadequate to discuss a point of doctrine, either because they don't know the answer, or because they don't know the sources. Being a teacher requires you to be able to source, instead of spouting opinions. An insecure teacher will give (or allow) a dismissing answer instead of announcing that they don't know the answer to everything. It is a great temptation to think that a teacher must or should know all the answers, especially if you are teaching youth.

Whether my teacher is good or not, however, I still raised my hand when they were called. As such, I have a responsibility to not challenge or embarrass that teacher *publicly*. I also have a responsibility in sustaining them to call them aside and coach or request privately. Or at least to allow them to explain themselves.

My experience with informal group discussions, or when a class member is saying that a point of doctrine is unimportant has given me a few ideas as to why this happens.

Often, the person speaking is trying to 'protect' a less experienced member of the group. Whether this protection is required is questionable. When spoken of appropriately, no truth need confuse or alarm. However, we have all been part of discussions where truth or the holy is spoken of callously. Whether this 'protection' in necessary or not, the sentiment is honorable. When my question is being dismissed as unimportant, I try to find out why, before I become offended.

In group settings, sometimes a person wants to be seen as the expert, and doesn't want to be proven otherwise. This person is protecting themselves. Thankfully, this is rare in my experience.

Another interesting phenomenon is when a person, having heard for many years, or their whole life, that there are doctrines or truths that are unimportant, believes it. This person, having seen the same response, from many people, and rarely seeing the real reasons for it, learns that a certain group of truths, doctrines, or questions are 'taboo', and should always be reacted to in the same way: disdain. This person is often the most frustrating, but they are simply doing what they have been taught. I don't know how to react to this person. If there is a teacher there, often they can teach that person how this truth is applicable, interesting, or at least not unimportant, but that is a difficult task, and doesn't solve the whole problem. So, we love them.

Just kidding. I wouldn't end a paragraph with one of those answers. I think we should be kind to them, avoid making them uncomfortable all of the time (sometimes can be good), and bring up ways that these truths actually are important. If we can't do those things, we are not the ones to 'correct' that person, and therefore shouldn't. Perhaps, over time, they will become interested, like my youth in an above example.

So, there is my opinion.

Page 3 Salvation My Important Not It

Nighthawk

This is a topic that really interests me. Are there questions that God will not give the answer to, regardless of our faithfulness? I really do not know if there is, but I have always thought there may be.

I am not saying this as a blanket statement, but are there eternal doctrines that mortal men cannot be privy to, at least not in this life?

Salvation My Important Not It

I don't think that there are any questions that God is not willing to answer. However, there are a lot of questions that we are not ready to find the answers to.

There is a way to open up the eternities to our view. But we must prepare for that experience. God wants us to learn and know all things. But we disregard what we are given, making light of it, assuming that it is insignificant, or that it is not important for our salvation - in other words, just interesting.

There is nothing that we could not receive in this life, if only we would give up our prejudices and pride.

It Is Not Important For My Salvation...

In my experience, the answer "it is not important for your salvation" does not come out because of lack of time during a class but mainly because the topic discussed is of a controversial nature (Plural Marriage, Blacks and the Priesthood, Blood Atonement, etc) so the answer is giving with the intention of terminating the conversation right there.

Protect them from what?

It Not Important My Salvation... - Page 3

I apologize for my unclarity.

I think that 'protection' is rarely, if ever, required. I do however see that some disagree. There are some who feel that others must be 'protected' from differences of opinion, the idea that the church does not know everything, or the idea that there has ever been a change in church policy.

For example, we all have heard stories of newly baptized people. Often, one of the following remarks will be part of their reasoning for their conversion: "Everyone at church was just so loving and nice, unified like Christians are supposed to be...", "The missionaries answered all my questions, and there was no other church that could do that...", or other things along those lines.

The protection that they offering is from the fact that Christ's church fulfills prophecy and is correct, just not in the way they expected.

We have all heard of people, most of us know them intimately, that were baptized with a new testimony, only to discard it at the first sign of the unexpected. After discarding their testimony, those people sometimes begin to discount and deride the sacred truths and covenants that they had received. Few things more sad than that.

I understand the motivation behind protecting against such an occurrence. Sadly, 'protection' may have the opposite effect, but that is a topic for a different time:

Rather off topic, but... When should newer members be exposed to controversy, or deep doctrine? -or- Does preventing new members from learning about deep doctrine make it more difficult for them to deal with it later?

I hope that made more sense.

It Not Important My Salvation... Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

I do not think in a discussion forum, that there are many topics that are off limits (except for discussing endowment details that we have covenanted not to reveal), but I think in a classroom setting, there has to be some limits on how "off topic" the discussion should be.

If we are discussing the atonement of Christ, there is really no reason to discuss blacks and the priesthood. Now if the discussion is the restoration of the priesthood something should be said about topic of blacks and the Priesthood. I do not think this should be the focus of that lesson, as there are many points that have to be discussed, this being only one of them.

I think these issues become a problem in a classroom setting if they become the focus of instruction rather then supplementing the main point of the lesson. A discussion on Marriage should include the topic of Plural marriage and its necessity as an eternal covenant, but not be the end all of the entire discussion.

We had a discussion like this in Sunday school a few years ago, and it was quite interesting. We even discussed that this is an ordinance that would most likely be required of us at a future date. Though there was some misgivings by some about having to live this law, it was refreshing to hear the different perspectives on the issue and it was dealt with in a rather straight forward manner.

As to getting into the doctrines that require preparatory knowledge, isn't there something to be said about line upon line precept upon precept. Even Joseph Smith acknowledged that their were some doctrines that he held to himself that if the bulk of the Church knew about them, they would kill him for it. This would indicate that even Joseph Smith knew that there were some doctrines that needed to be prefaced with a greater understanding of the basics, before being revealled to the Church and to the world.