- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Euhemerus wrote:
in rural Michigan is that people are VERY conservative.
I lived for 8 years in Columbus OH (don’t get me started on the OSU v Michigan rivarly…let’s just agree we’ll not be on the same side of the football sidelines and leave it at that
…but I know what you mean about conservative Mid-Westerners. My experience, was that in and out of the church, people are pretty conservative.
However, I found it much easier to hold and share differing opinions on doctrinal issues…and found people not so in my face about it…as long as they knew my heart was in the right place and I was anxiously engaged in doing good.
I have not had that experience out here in the west. For example, just last Sunday, I was told, “Well, I won’t tell you how to think, you can choose to believe what you want. But I am required to teach you what the prophet says and what the church teaches. So don’t take offense when I tell you that you are wrong.”
🙄 That just never happened to me in Ohio, even though the communities did have strong conservative values…they weren’t so proselytizing zealously about doctrines. That is why I would think you could hold differing viewpoints on doctrine or history, but love the youth and teach them gospel principles, and make the activities outstanding and the youth feel loved and want to be in your group…and I would think the parents would support you.
But each ward can be different…I would just assume there is greater chance in Michigan for you to not have to be approached by the doctrine keepers of the world.
The biggest divider between political liberalism and conservatism is rural vs. urban – no matter where that is in the country, including Utah. That same divide exists between religious liberalism and conservatism. One area understands the need for help; the other understands the need for independence and self-reliance. Notice I said “need” in both cases. I see the Gospel of pure Mormonism as the balance of those two examples of the need for opposition in all things – as the balance between a lot of paradoxes, actually.
Euhemerus wrote:
I have to be honest, for whatever faith/belief I have in God, I have much much less in a literal Satan (not sure why). In fact, when I read this statement I nearly laughed (sorry if that seems blasphemous). I just don’t buy into Ouija boards, seances, or Satan worship. For me it’s like watching “The Exorcism of Emily Rose.” A bit scary and entertaining as a movie, but not to be taken seriously. Maybe I’m wrong. In any case, not sure how to convey the “reality” of Satan when I myself am VERY skeptical. Now talking about temptation and/or evil I can do because those exist, but the point of the lesson is clearly to teach the reality of Satan.I think your answer is right here in your comments. You do believe in evil and temptation, anything taken too far can become destructive. Even if you simply slap the label of “Satan” onto this concept of degradation or evil and call it the source, it should be easy enough to talk about the reality of it in a class. Words are simply representations of things. Talk about the thing that matters, forget about how some people picture the meaning of words.
No one ever said you have to hold a literal belief in something to talk about it using the same terms as those people who do. Even if your sentences have a slightly different structure it will be rare to have someone ask you to clarify your specific concept. And if they do say something like “I’m sure I have not achieved a perfect understanding on this subject yet, but I honestly try to grasp and accept everything that has been revealed to me.” We all learn through personal revelation, there are many scriptures to back that up. One human cannot teach another anything – it comes through the spirit. Our important communication is directly with God. If you are honestly trying to seek out and hold on to knowledge, light, “truth”, nobody in the church can give you grief about it – you are doing exactly what you are supposed to do.
edit: Now I may have more of a problem if someone is looking for support of a specific chain of thought; like if you do X-Y-Z they you can expect A-B-C as a result… most of the time you can throw in “the Lord’s timetable” as a good diversion …
but, …on this topic I can see the argument of “if you don’t hold to the rod you fall under Satan’s power.” I don’t like scare tactics, but if you think about what that idea is essentially saying, to me it’s basically “if you’re not up to good, you’re up to no good.” While it does kind of throw out any possiblilty of middle ground, it also makes some sense. I like Ray’s definition of righteous – “right with God”, or even “aligned with goodness.” To me the point of this lesson is to strive for higher ground. I don’t know what those kids who committed mass shootings were focused on in their spare time, but i don’t think it was higher ground.
Heber13 wrote:For example, just last Sunday, I was told, “Well, I won’t tell you how to think, you can choose to believe what you want. But I am required to teach you what the prophet says and what the church teaches. So don’t take offense when I tell you that you are wrong.”
🙄 Wow, according to their personal interpretation of what the prophet says anyway! That’s the thing, some ideas are more popular for sure, but you can usually find some statements from somewhere in history that lend support to almost any idea.
I have come to see one of the biggest tragedies in life is when people don’t understand the limits of their own understanding!
One of my favorite quotes says: Quote:Don’t worry about being LDS and believing something “different”. Chances are there is at least one apostle at some point who has agreed with you and said so publicly.
That drives some people, especially anti-Mormons and many members solidly in Stage 4, nuts – but I like that it is pretty accurate.
Ray, I love that quote! Eu, did you ever come home from church and tell your parents what you learned? I never did. I’d be shocked if someone did. I think you’re worrying too much. Trying to get them to listen to you at all will be the hardest thing. I think you’re more likely to be ignored than reported to the parents.
The worst that can happen is that you get released for a stupid reason earlier than you would like from a calling you’ve come to love. The best is that you serve in a calling you love for as long as you can, touching hearts and helping young men. Either extreme involves loving and serving; it’s only the middle that is “bleh”. I say accept the calling, love and serve the young men and let the length of the calling and the reason you (inevitably) get released happen as it may. This really isn’t about you.
Well said everybody. Again, I appreciate the help and support. I think I’ve beat the issue enough and analyzed it to death. I’m going to go ahead and take the challenge because I think I can offer the boys something useful. I think if I can keep what you’ve all said in mind I’ll be able to do it in a way that is comfortable for me, and helps the boys. And who knows, perhaps I’ll even grow spiritually along the way.
Another thing I often think to myself in church… is when I hear wacky comments, no matter how off-the-wall, I think to myself: “there must be a real truth hidden in there …somewhere.” Then I ponder it and try to discover it. I would be comfortable telling youth that I think Satan represents desires and impulses within us that are destructive and cause suffering and harm. You can use that type of phrasing in lessons without directly contradicting the teaching point and meaning of the lessons. Those impulses are very real in us, regardless of their source. I don’t
HAVEto explicitly clarify that I don’t find it useful to blame my impulses on an external, supernatural being whispering in my ear. I don’t know that Satan exists or does not exist, but the idea of Satan and evil is pretty easy for me to see. The effects are real. Conservative parents don’t want their children exposed to outsiders teaching them about “sinful” and “social” ideas. Liberal parents don’t want their children being exposed to outsiders teaching them about “bigotry,” and “intolerance” and a lack of social responsibility for others. Same meat, different gravy… But as far as being exposed to ideas from non-members or diversity? Well … you just can’t control that in Michigan (IMO).
Brian wrote:I would be comfortable telling youth that I think Satan represents desires and impulses within us that are destructive and cause suffering and harm. You can use that type of phrasing in lessons without directly contradicting the teaching point and meaning of the lessons. Those impulses are very real in us, regardless of their source.
I don’t HAVE to explicitly clarify that I don’t find it useful to blame my impulses on an external, supernatural being whispering in my ear. I don’t know that Satan exists or does not exist, but the idea of Satan and evil is pretty easy for me to see. The effects are real.
I absolutely agree, and this is how I would phrase it. The one point I’d like to make (and I’m going to accept the calling given everyone’s great advice, but want to point this out) is that the comment here focuses on notcontradictingthe lesson or teaching point. But that is not the same as actually teaching the correlated intention of the lesson (I think there is much less wiggle room in the YM manual than in the priesthood manuals). And I think this gets to the heart of my dad’s concern. Not that I will contradict the church or the lesson, but that I won’t be able to teach the correlated material as it is clearly intended (and when I say “clearly intended” I mean from a Utah TBM point of view). Nevertheless, I do think it is certainly possible to give an acceptable (if not correlated) version of the lesson, and hopefully I can teach the “reality of evil and temptation” without talking much about Satan (since the lesson wants us to avoid talk of Satan anyway).
Re MH-
You’re right, I never did really discuss church lessons at home (something I hope to change with my own kids). Although, one YM leader I had taught us about the dead sea scrolls, the “mark of the beast,” the true meaning of “666” etc. He was a very strange guy and was fairly quickly removed from his calling after that lesson (and I think later excommunicated over some other issues). Even with all that, I don’t recall telling my parents about it (though my friends and I certainly made fun of the guy).
Ha ha, I’m sure everyone has had some strange experiences with teachers. I remember one sub when I was young sharing an expreience with an ouija board – she said her scriptures were spontaneously sliding off the edge of the table. 😮 😯
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.