And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of Moses. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of Moses as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of Moses.
And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses (Mosiah 13:27-28).
This could have been Abinadi’s immediate response when they said “that salvation did come by the law of Moses.” He could have told them that they were wrong, that salvation did not come by the law. But he didn’t. Instead, he identified a principle they were ready to accept and which they also needed to hear: if you keep the commandments, you will be saved. Only after reiterating this point, including reviewing the Ten Commandments in the following chapter, did he return to the question and begin to teach them about the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
I think we can learn an important principle from Abinadi’s example: when we hear our students make statements that reflect an incorrect understanding of doctrine, we don’t always have to tackle those misunderstandings head-on. It is often more effective to begin by finding common ground, by identifying the truths which they do understand, and then building on those truths.
Today, when I have opportunities to teach, and as I plan for future teaching opportunities, I will remember Abinadi’s example of building on his students’ current level of understanding. I will remember that I can teach my students more effectively by building on the truths they already understand than by contradicting and directly challenging their incorrect statements.
Leave a Reply