- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Had a good experience Sunday. On the way to church my daughter said she had to share her favorite conference talk and why in Young Women’s. She said she wanted to do “Come Join with Us” — the oft-quoted, and loved talk here on StayLDS by Uchdorft who admits leaders make mistakes, and welcomes doubters and unorthodox people to join the fold again. But she said “but I’m afraid to because it will stir up controversy”. She also wondered what to say about why she liked it.
We gave her some ideas to let her make her decision.
1. Uchdorft took leaders off the pedestal. This protects testimony as many people lose testimony when members make our leaders out to be bigger than life, and then leaders make mistakes. If we don’t expect perfection, our testimonies are insulated when human leaders disappoint.
2. Uchd. showed humility in admitting the church leaders have made mistakes. This is exactly what you would expect from a Christlike leader and organization.
3. He welcomed people to be part of the organization, even though they may not be orthodox, just as Jesus did.
After Church, my daughter told us what she did:
1. She shared an orthodox talk from conference, and shared why she liked it. It sounded like she gave some TBM reasons.
2. Then, she asked if she could share a second talk — and it was the Come Join With Us talk. She shared the pedestal reason I gave above as her reason for liking it.
I think she was trying to show she was TBM while balancing in the Come Join with Us talk. She said there was no negative reaction to what she said.
I was very proud of this. It shows she is making her own way, and our own influence at home is having neutralizing some of the harmful attitudes members adopt due to our culture. While not shattering her TBM bubble. Very satisfying.
That’s cool. It’s encouraging when we realise our kids are smart and independent minded. A few weeks ago I was driving to church and my daughter (11yo) said:
“Last week I asked my primary teacher why there were so many churches and religions. He said ‘I think they are created by Satan to confuse us, but it’s OK if you view things differently.'”
I resisted any reaction to the initial comment by the teacher, appreciated the “you can view things differently” caveat and then asked her what she things. She replied (paraphrasing): “I think other churches are true too and that God is happy with them worshipping him in a different way.”
She’s great
Great responses from you, SD, your daughter, mackay11’s daughter’s teacher (about it’s okay if you believe differently) and mackay11’s daughter. We see the traditional, orthodox members easily, but I really do believe there are
farmore who have nuanced views than we realize. mackay11 wrote:He said ‘I think they are created by Satan to confuse us…’
These comments test my patience, but I think if we sat down and really got into this statement we would find most people who say this don’t believe Satan controls every aspect of their worship, but they feel he has changed their direction just enough so they will miss their “airport” in the end.
Orson wrote:mackay11 wrote:He said ‘I think they are created by Satan to confuse us…’
These comments test my patience, but I think if we sat down and really got into this statement we would find most people who say this don’t believe Satan controls every aspect of their worship, but they feel he has changed their direction just enough so they will miss their “airport” in the end.
Not to derail the thread, but I believe this goes to the church teaching that we are the true church (the Church of the Firstborn) and everything else is the great and abominable church.This was an especially common teaching prior to the 1980s but still exists. It bugs me, too.
DarkJedi wrote:I believe this goes to the church teaching that we are the true church (the Church of the Firstborn) and everything else is the great and abominable church.This was an especially common teaching prior to the 1980s but still exists. It bugs me, too.
If the great and abominable church is not a church at all – perhaps there is room for the Church of the Firstborn to be similarly borderless.
I’m proud of both of your daughter’s SD and Mackay.
I am happy that my kids know that paintings of Christ (or Adam or Heaven etc.) are just artists’ representations and are not necessarily accurate. I believe that this will set the stage for allowing differences of belief in later years. May we all be artists painting our own internal canvas.
I appreciate the story and sharing it SD and Mackey. As I prepare for my wife’s and I future child. I am reading heavily on growing a child with reasonable limits on behavior while growing them autonomously with autonomy support and self-determination theory. I wonder how she might it not blend in in primary or church. These stories are encouraging. Thank you. This made me think of my son the other night talking about Noah’s ark and how he was thinking it probably couldn’t hold all the animals and probably didn’t really happen like that. He’s only 8. The 11 year olds in my primary class sometimes make comments like that too. It’s nice to know some in the next generation are willing to consider things on their own terms and not just automatically believe what they hear. Even as a TBM I believed that the church of the lamb was a state of mind/way of living. The etymology of “church” in various languages means “power” or “teachings.”
If the sentence becomes “power of the lamb” or “teachings of the lamb” vs “power/teachings of the adversary” then it makes far more sense.
I agree though that it used to be “us vs them.” I think that’s what I objected to about E.Holland’s talk so much. It was us vs them.
Thinking about the comments being shared (I love your child’s Noah’s Arc comment journeygirl) I think the big difference is global information. It’s easier to imagine a full arc when you only know the farm animals and a few in books or zoos. When you have wider information via Internet/TV as our kids do and realise there are 1000s of different animals then Noah’s arc becomes a nonsense.
mackay11 wrote:
Thinking about the comments being shared (I love your child’s Noah’s Arc comment journeygirl) I think the big difference is global information. It’s easier to imagine a full arc when you only know the farm animals and a few in books or zoos. When you have wider information via Internet/TV as our kids do and realise there are 1000s of different animals then Noah’s arc becomes a nonsense.Actually about 8.7 million species and trillions more varieties with those kinds. Millions more that are now extinct because of man that where alive in that time frame. The orthodox Jewish explanation is that the ship was ethereal.
Noah’s ark– 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft).
Forgotten_Charity wrote:mackay11 wrote:
Thinking about the comments being shared (I love your child’s Noah’s Arc comment journeygirl) I think the big difference is global information. It’s easier to imagine a full arc when you only know the farm animals and a few in books or zoos. When you have wider information via Internet/TV as our kids do and realise there are 1000s of different animals then Noah’s arc becomes a nonsense.Actually about 8.7 million species and trillions more varieties with those kinds. Millions more that are now extinct because of man that where alive in that time frame. The orthodox Jewish explanation is that the ship was ethereal.
Noah’s ark– 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft).
Indeed.
My kids have learned, through experience and knowledge, that “the world” is not a bad place fl of bad people. The phrase “the world” is one of my pet-peeves at church.
I believe that the upcoming generation has greater access to information, better critical thinking skills and more courage in stating their convictions than any in the past. It is a great comfort to me.
IMO, the church’s greatest current challenge and their KEY needs are to be able to address the historical, doctrinal challenges and incongruities in a rational fashion, introduce more transparency at every level, create greater inclusiveness, allow for non-conformity of thought and shades of gray and to find a way to remain relevant. If they do not, the LDS is on path to the religious dustbin.
The old models of squelching information that challenges the status quo, ignoring differing opinions and top-down thinking are a recipe for an organizational disaster, again, IMO.
silentstruggle wrote:I believe that the upcoming generation has greater access to information, better critical thinking skills and more courage in stating their convictions than any in the past.
It is a great comfort to me.
IMO, the church’s greatest current challenge and their KEY needs are to be able to address the historical, doctrinal challenges and incongruities in a rational fashion, introduce more transparency at every level, create greater inclusiveness, allow for non-conformity of thought and shades of gray and to find a way to remain relevant. If they do not, the LDS is on path to the religious dustbin.
The old models of squelching information that challenges the status quo, ignoring differing opinions and top-down thinking are a recipe for an organizational disaster, again, IMO.
I agree. I think the church has made some great strides in doing exactly what you describe with the recent essays and statements. I hope they continue to do so.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.