- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
AmyJ wrote:
From women I know who are trying to do this, who actually took President Eyring seriously, I hear snippets of “I am trying to run Come Follow Me and have spiritual experiences – and my husband checks out before it even starts”. What their verbal language says at the time is “I am defeated before I start, I am not good enough for this, and I am not being listened to.”
I’m guilty of that.
I don’t have much interest in the Come Follow Me materials. While I have interest in scripture, I don’t have much interest in reading as a family and having formal discussions.
What you describe feels like many church programs. Are they really organic things people want to do, or is it more of an obligation?. Things we do just so we can tell ourselves (and others) that we’ve done them. Don’t forget the part where we feel bad for not meeting an obligation that we didn’t have interest in to begin with.
Come Follow Me wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t have the manual. The manual has more of a focus on teaching people to become a better member of the church than it does of having a wider focus of teaching people to become a better person. There’s lots of overlap in that but there is a difference.
nibbler wrote:
Come Follow Me wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t have the manual. The manual has more of a focus on teaching people to become a better member of the church than it does of having a wider focus of teaching people to become a better person. There’s lots of overlap in that but there is a difference.
I agree. I’m fine with suggested reading for the week and this is what everybody is reading so we could have a discussion about that. But the manual is more about pushing the church narrative and pushing the understanding you’re supposed to get from the reading. I will go so far as to say the manual is more about teaching people to be more obedient church members as opposed to teaching people to be better followers of Jesus Christ/Christians. A bit ironic.
:eh: Being completely open here, my wife and I do not read scriptures together or generally have scripture discussion, although I do occasionally have discussions with my adult children. I have in the past “kept up” with the suggested weekly readings but do not currently do so, choosing instead to read what I want to read (since I’m not going to church at all, much less second hour). And I do not use the manual at all.
nibbler wrote:
I’m guilty of that.While I have interest in scripture, I don’t have much interest in reading as a family and having formal discussions.
I managed to ditch the manual, and a lot of “scripture” too. Actually, a stabilizing factor for me was changing how I defined “scripture”.
If “scripture” was something put into form (originally written down) that inspired me, well that brought “Lord of the Rings” back onto the scriptural menu and made Brene Brown a “prophetess” or at least a really wise sage.
As for formal discussions, my family has lots of conversations about how to treat each other well (some of them are even beyond the “Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Sister’s Toy” level) into actual operating “truths”.
nibbler wrote:
What you describe feels like many church programs. Are they really organic things people want to do, or is it more of an obligation?. Things we do just so we can tell ourselves (and others) that we’ve done them. Don’t forget the part where we feel bad for not meeting an obligation that we didn’t have interest in to begin with.
Honestly, I view all church programs as something started small scale that worked really well to solve 1 localized problem that got standardization and funding before being calcified into tradition. It took a lot of guilt away from me by reminding me that it might work for 1 location, 1 group, 1 person, or 1 family – and it doesn’t work for me – and vice versa.
I’ve been thinking more about Elder Bednar’s talk: https://www.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-david-a-bednar He said the following:
Quote:I find it especially instructive that repetition is such an important aspect of the essential and most
sacred ordinances in which we participate as members of the Savior”s restored Church. Repetitious learning
and teaching as a line upon line and precept upon precept pattern of revelation can invite the Holy Ghost to renew, enrich,
and enlarge the knowledge we already have obtained; it also can bring new knowledge and understanding into our
minds and hearts.
I’m wondering if this carries over into the way the church presents itself to the membership as a whole.
For example:
. We have General Conference talks that inspire & instruct.
– We then read the same talks in the Church magazines.
– We then have classes that again present & discuss the same principles presented in GC.
I think there is a place for teaching repetitive lessons. For example, when you’re teaching a person swimming lessons.
Or, Temple Ordinances. Or, Priesthood Ordinances for the Sacrament or giving a blessing, etc.
There are various methods for teaching. Teaching repetitively is only one way. I’m not an expert in teaching.
This is my own assumption. The ultimate teacher (IMO) was & is Jesus Christ. I read recently that approximately 30% of what
he taught was in the form of parables. As I understand it, he would teach a lesson, explain the lesson then leave it
to the listener to determine what happened next. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son. He leaves it to
our imagination to determine what various people thought or believed. For example the older brother in the parable:
was he angry at his Father or younger brother?
The most fulfilling classes for me are ones where the teacher encourages the students to explore all options & opinions.
Then, discuss which options or opinions best fit your religious beliefs & defend your belief.
Does this make any sense at all?
Minyan Man wrote:
The most fulfilling classes for me are ones where the teacher encourages the students to explore all options & opinions.Then, discuss which options or opinions best fit your religious beliefs & defend your belief.
Does this make any sense at all?
For the last few months I have been thinking about “Description” and “Prescription” as opposite sides of a continuum/gradient.
It’s not a “fixed point” either. When faced with an initial situation, it’s good to focus on getting a “description” of the situation and potential factors contributing to it/connected to it. Eventually you act on that knowledge – that’s a “prescription” as it were. If it doesn’t work, or needs refinement, or some of the factors shift (as they will), then you go back to the description side before “re-writing” a “prescription”.
It seems to me that a respectable amount of fights with me happen when someone takes what I am saying further towards the “Prescription” side then I actually intended (or vice versa).
We feel shame in part when someone else is writing a “prescription” for us to follow that is not sustainable – and may do us more harm than good.
The journey from childhood to adulthood is really training in compiling personal “descriptions” and learning to write appropriate “prescriptions” for ourselves instead of relying on the “prescriptions” our parents wrote to keep us safe. NOTE: Just because our parents wrote it doesn’t make it wrong or make it not a useful tool in the situation. I am trying to define the shift of personal responsibility from being outsourced to parents (parents write the rules in the beginning about what keeps kids safe) to insourced inside the child). Baptism and “Graduation” to YM/YW are our rituals to mark a point in time where our church culture celebrates and/or expects a certain amount of insourcing to the child (in terms of capacity to make those decisions and expectation that the child is making those decisions).
This past Sunday, we had Priesthood. The lesson was given by the new member of the EQ Presidency. His background is in communication, motivation & psychology. I can’t remember the last time I said to
myself: I wish I had taken notes. Or: I wish this was on video somewhere.
His lesson was not out of a lesson manual or General Conference talk. It was from his own experiences.
I found an article that is a general presentation of the lesson given.
https://www.tnp.no/norway/global/2859-generational-attitudes-and-behaviour/ I never realized for example, the gaps & differences between my generation (silent generation), my children (Gen X) and
my grandchildren (Gen Y +). For example:
Baby Boomers were expected to receive instruction from the previous generation & to follow them without questioning.
Gen Y
Quote:…Millennials expect a greater range and variety of things whether it is in the classroom or workplace.
They expect a continual flow of new and exciting products entering the marketplace. This generation is more cautious about
new products than any generation before it.
He gave an example about what he discovered about his own family.
He wanted his son to clean his room & he knew from past experience; his son wouldn’t do it if he just told him to do it.
He then decided that he would help his son clean his room & when they were done, they would clean the parents’ room.
You can probably see the implications with gospel principles being taught in the home & at church.
I wonder if the church is aware of these differences within & between the generations?
My impression is, that the leadership always looks back in history first & then makes changes as they are inspired.
Final decisions are weighted to what was done in history first before looking for inspiration. (IMO)
I wish we would have had more time to discuss this impact on the church.
Minyan Man wrote:
https://www.tnp.no/norway/global/2859-generational-attitudes-and-behaviour/ I never realized for example, the gaps & differences between my generation (silent generation), my children (Gen X) and
my grandchildren (Gen Y +). For example:
Baby Boomers were expected to receive instruction from the previous generation & to follow them without questioning.
Gen Y
Quote:…Millennials expect a greater range and variety of things whether it is in the classroom or workplace.
They expect a continual flow of new and exciting products entering the marketplace. This generation is more cautious about
new products than any generation before it.
He gave an example about what he discovered about his own family.
He wanted his son to clean his room & he knew from past experience; his son wouldn’t do it if he just told him to do it.
He then decided that he would help his son clean his room & when they were done, they would clean the parents’ room.
You can probably see the implications with gospel principles being taught in the home & at church.
I wonder if the church is aware of these differences within & between the generations?
My impression is, that the leadership always looks back in history first & then makes changes as they are inspired.
Final decisions are weighted to what was done in history first before looking for inspiration. (IMO)
I wish we would have had more time to discuss this impact on the church.
1. I don’t think that the church is aware of those differences or really cares. The very nature of the church setup is “restoration of the past” – renewal of an eternal cycle. Changes between generations is a small thing compared to eons of time. It is a universal ish “one size fits all” type of scenario – with definite “rewards”.
2. I agree – but I would stipulate that the church leadership looks at the “history of the winners” (as defined by specific groups of men) not “history as a whole”.
3. There is a lot of “messy stuff” like ecology, interpersonal dynamics of power, that is approached as “settled” or as “truth revealed”. In today’s world, a lot of the “settled” stuff actually isn’t settled, has alternate histories, and/or has a variable level of relevance (which comes across as irreverent to question).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.