The problem that I see with this is the emphasis on what I call “the checklist” of Mormonism. We seem to focus so much on the tasks that are involved in being considered a “good Mormon” (in whose judgment?) that we neglect the principles that lie at the foundation of those “rules.”

Children’s brains are growing and developing at phenomenal rates from about age 11-17. They are truly building the foundation of who they will be. Research suggests that this time span is equivalent in brain development as it is during those toddler years where young children learn to walk and talk!

If we are only teaching our children how to “do” the Gospel, but not live it – and it does seem that our focus is on DOing the Gospel – then we are doing a huge disservice to our children. Because we stress “leading by example” we tend to preach our own “goodness” to our children – we turn ourselves into martyrs. If we do not feel we are “worthy” then we might in secret belittle another who does appear to be accomplishing all the tasks (the checklist of Mormonism) to console ourselves – but that doesn’t help our children achieve (another task oriented term) either.

It amazes me that we will occasionally give lip-service to the Savior, but focus very little on the relationship we can have with him. Have you ever met someone who was truly saintly? I have had the privilege a couple of times in my life. You know the thing they had in common? They had true charity. They were honest – with themselves, they accepted who they were, and they were meek. They were accepting of every person – they felt compassion for all of their mortal brothers and sisters. Most importantly, they had a true relationship with the Savior – and one could feel the intensity of that relationship.

As a mother, I believe the most important thing I can do is teach my children to build their relationship with the Savior. We teach our children that He is the one to know. We teach them that though we love them more than life itself, we are not perfect and can not atone for them. We teach them that the most important relationship they can have is with the Savior – that if they build that relationship, they will never be alone, and they can always feel Love. We rarely, if ever, teach our children that they need to be good examples or good Mormons. We rarely, if ever, teach our children that they need to be rule followers – and when we do, we explain the reasoning behind it. We rarely, if ever, teach our children that they must do what we say and be obedient. We try our teach our children to recognize the Spirit and to build a relationship with Jesus Christ. We try to teach our children the importance of principles so they can BE who they were born capable of being.

Teaching the children what it means to know the Savior is far more valuable than teaching them to look at men and what men have accomplished. Men are fallible. Jesus Christ was much more about BEing than DOing. Imo, we (as a Church) are far too focused on DOing to the detriment of ourselves and more importantly, our children. Focusing so much on the tasks (or dare I say “works”) keeps us too focused on this plain of existence. If we could practice enough faith to teach the children to truly follow the Savior, I believe many more would keep the faith (not fall away) and that we would be a truly joyous society. By living the principles of the Gospel, we will be truly fulfilled. By living the principles of the Gospel, we will find a relationship with our Savior that can steady us for any storm. By focusing on the Savior, we need not worry about the checklist – the checklist items will be taken care of. Perhaps a bit more faith (in the Savior) would bring about greater change for good. Perhaps a bit more focus on the Savior would bring about greater faith. Perhaps a bit more focus on teaching the children about the Savior, and how to gain a personal relationship with Him, would bring about happier, stronger, harmonious and loving families. At least, that’s my opinion.

Its not just that Christ needs to be mentioned in talks and lessons, it needs to be studied. We should talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. -2 Ne 25:26

Lesson on tithing – Christ makes it possible for us to enter heaven, we only are asked to pay 1/10th to our brothers and sisters who need our help

Lesson on Charity – The focus isn’t that this helps us feel good about ourselves, it is how Christ loved us, and if we can’t possess that quality, nothing else matters.

Lesson on Joseph Smith – he testified of Christ

Lesson on Priesthood – Christ is the great High Priest – it is His priesthood.

….all lessons can and should start with this focus and end with tying all church practices to this focus.

Most importantly, if our ward is really bad, we can share our concerns with the Bishop and also ask if there is a way we can help…perhaps through prayer or offer to give a talk on how to speak.

Sitting back criticizing in our minds won’t lead to any progress.

Food for thought: When you went out home or visiting teaching last month were you trying to do it the way Jesus would if He had the same assignment ? Or did you get out and do it so that you wouldn’t disappoint somebody ?

When you prepared your talk or lesson, did you rely enough on inspiration that you could feel that at least part of your a message was custom-tailored by the Lord for the group you would be teaching ? In other words, you were a partner with Jesus in fulfilling that assignment ?

I certainly don’t always serve in the way I have cited in the above examples, but I think that is a big part of why so many of our meetings are not Christ-centered. The words we speak in church are a (subconscious?) reflection of our thought patterns and behaviors – what we focus on – when we are *not* in church.

I would think that until we see miracles as often as did Jesus and his Apostles in the New Testament, then we have plenty of room for discussion in our meetings about the personality, teachings, accomplishments, power, and life of Christ.

I love listening to Elaine Pagels–she is very interesting. The Gnostic Gospels are very interesting as well. One of the main differences between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity is that the Gnostics didn’t believe Christ was resurrected, and it fact believed it wasn’t important at all. The Apostle Paul’s letters were written to counter this argument.

Another thing about Gnosticism is that they believed in 2 Gods–a good god, and a bad god. The bad god had the name of Jehovah, and Jehovah created the world. Jehovah ruined much of everything. Gnostics believed that one needed to obtain gnosis or “secret knowledge”, and get rid of the body in order to be reunited with the good god. They actually believed that Judas helped Jesus get rid of his body, that Judas was the good guy, and all the other 11 apostles were dumb and evil. (The Gospel of Judas is a gnostic gospel.) Gnostics also praised Cain, who slew Abel. In their view, Resurrection is an unwanted aspect, and not part of the gospel of Christ. One should aspire to get rid of the body, not regain it through resurrection.

Anyway, they have many other strange beliefs. Their emphasis on gnosis, or secret knowledge, is really interesting, but some of their other beliefs are quite foreign and heretical to us, even to a heretic like me! Many believe that the Gospel of Thomas predates our 4 gospels, and that it may be the source of Jesus’ words in the 4 gospels. The Gospel of Thomas has many things similar to what we read in the 4 gospels, but completely ignores the resurrection story. Gnosticism is interesting, but I’m not sure we really want to introduce it at church….

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh. (Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 4:21)

As I read the comments above, I didn’t come across the word repentance. If we are to know Christ, on a personal level, through a personal relationship, each of us needs to understand our need to repent, and be born again–and receive a remission of our sins.

His gift to us is the Atonement, our gift to Him is our repentance.

Church is essential, but it is ultimately insufficient to bring us to Christ. We come to Christ, when we call upon Him in mighty prayer and seek Him with a Spiritual energy that causes the channels of communication to be opened and His grace flows to us and we are baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost.

How is his son?

Just wondering. I have a post for that next week.

I appreciate the comments about tying our existing lessons to Christ. I’ll be honest, though, the JS RS/PH manual is tough to do that with. Some lessons are easier than others, but probably 50% of the lessons, while they may have other merits and practical value, are a huge stretch to make a relevant connection to Christ work.

I agree with Hawkgrrrl that Christ is too often missing from our services, but it would be so easy to correct. Ah ha! Finally something for the Sunday School presidency to do!

“I’ve been listening carefully to General Conference the last couple of years with this focus, and many of the general authorities share deeply meaningful things about how important true humility is.”

I think that President Uchtdorf’s talk “Lift Where You Stand” from Oct 2008 was aimed right at that issue of humbling serving where you are called.

Hawk and others: I love George Pace. i have his books and tapes. I though his description of being with Christ in the Garden and witnessing the atonement was very moving and inspiring. I imagine he was a great teacher and a fine example. I thought the BRM rebuke was a shame.

I’ve been listening carefully to General Conference the last couple of years with this focus, and many of the general authorities share deeply meaningful things about how important true humility is. On a more local level, I find that it is more likely that “humility” is a showy kind of attitude that is as much back-door bragging as anything. There’s a difficult balance between sharing a positive, energetic enthusiasm about our eternal potential and setting ourselves up to rejoice in the worldly accomplishments that we attribute to ourselves because we are “righteous” and therefore deserving of “blessings.”

A common theme in Henri Nouwen’s writing is that our pain and suffering (he likes to call it our “brokenness” or woundedness) is a blessing because it brings us into contact with a level of humility that pushes us toward God. Jesus Christ is our example in that he submitted to all levels of woundedness to show us the way to God. I admit it sounds like you could take that to some unhealthy extremes, but really it’s an admission that we all have wounds and should be willing to care for each other in our service. I find that many Mormons don’t want to admit to being wounded, so they tend to keep a superficial “I’m OK, you’re OK” and focus on earthly accomplishments and eternal glory rather than an honest level of humility.

But I really liked George Pace, compared to some who wanted to be empire builders.

I agree with Ray that we should focus on both the humanity of Christ and our own potential which is far more appealing to me than the “God’s Pets” version you get in most Protestantism.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/17/offenders-for-a-word-part-2-do-mormons-worship-jesus/

In my experience there’s a singular lack of humility in Mormonism that needs to be corrected.

Sorry, but I have to quibble with that one a little. I agree totally that too much on the practical level in too many units focuses on program things to the detriment of worshiping God, but there is a difference between that and “Mormonism”.

If “humility” means complete debasement and a denial of our eternal potential, no thanks. If it means denial of our divine nature, no thanks. That’s the Protestant result of the unbridgeable gap, and I don’t want it. Otoh, if it means recognition of our unworthiness and reliance on Christ, with a stronger focus on His life and “mortal” teachings, I’m all for that.

There’s a difference between what is taught “in Mormonism” and what gets to the end of every row – and I think it’s important to separate the two and tackle them appropriately.

that was Bruce McConkie who ripped into George Pace in 1982 at BYU. Pace had written a well intentioned book that advocated developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A summary of the controvery is at http://www.mormonwiki.org/Relationship_with_Jesus

Hawkgrrl, I have sat through too many sacrament meetings where, once the sacrament ordinance is done, the name of Christ is mentioned only to close talks. I think it’s easy to make a case that our church worships Joseph Smith and the church organization at the expense of getting to know Jesus intimately. No matter how many inspirational stories can be told from our church’s history, if we leave out Jesus we’re worshipping our church, not our savior.

I agree with MH (4) that Christ’s humanity is greatly overlooked in our church. As I look to Christ as an example of God willing to submit to the human condition as a way to teach and lead us, I find myself drawn closer to him and finding a more intimate response to his teachings. I’m influenced by the Catholic writer Henri Nouwen, who wrote extensively and eloquently about Christ but rarely if ever mentioned the atonement. Nouwen focused on Christ’s humanity, and drew comparisons that give all of us imperfect humans hope in our attempts to become more like Christ. For me, too many Mormon talks are all about how great we are, not how deeply we all need Christ’s atonement. In my experience there’s a singular lack of humility in Mormonism that needs to be corrected.

So the question I find myself asking myself over and over again is: if we were to rank the relative importance of each of these topics, have we devoted the most time and space in our Gospel Principles manual to the most important topics?