Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Meadowchik

YW Virtue Lesson, Legos Version

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Granted, the girls of today are born into "A Man's World" but it doesn't mean that that is the only viewpoint that has to be accepted. 

Of course it doesn't mean that! Recognising the history is crucial to changing something so universally prevalent. 

You make a valid point that women can be just as guilty of perpetuating it.

Btw in my opinion I still experience those kinds of dismissive attitudes as a woman, from men and women. It makes me check my own behaviour, too, and also appreciate others checking theirs.

Recently my bishop admitted that perhaps he just didn't understand a worry of mine because he might not be as sensitive in the same way I am. Judging from what he's said in the past, I think he may be right, and I appreciate his awareness of the possibility that I have valid perceptions different from his own.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course it doesn't mean that! Recognising the history is crucial to changing something so universally prevalent. 

You make a valid point that women can be just as guilty of perpetuating it.

Btw in my opinion I still experience those kinds of dismissive attitudes as a woman, from men and women. It makes me check my own behaviour, too, and also appreciate others checking theirs.

Recently my bishop admitted that perhaps he just didn't understand a worry of mine because he might not be as sensitive in the same way I am. Judging from what he's said in the past, I think he may be right, and I appreciate his awareness of the possibility that I have valid perceptions different from his own.

I'd like to think that attitudes and behaviours are changing. I'm not so sure. I would hope you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/20/2016 at 10:54 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what many critics of Mormonism fail to realize is that Jesus Christ is a given in pretty much everything we say and do in our worship services and instructional settings. Whatever the point of doctrine might be, He is at the heart.

For example, those who say Mormons ought to be talking about Christ instead of genealogy betray their own ignorance of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Our focus on family history stems from our belief that salvation and the blessings of Christ's atonement must be available to all, including our kindred dead.

If it's in "everything we say"--but you don't actually say it--is it fair to label your critics ignorant? 

Her teaching technique aside, Meadowchick's message (as she shared in the OP) is pretty standard LDS fare, in my personal experience.  Just follow her outline, one through four:  An emphasis on what you do ("good things" - her first point).  Followed by a vague notion of repentance (point two) and sin (point three).  Vague because the latter is indistinguishable from mistake (which the Lego analogy doesn't help).  And this lack of distinction calls into question the meaning/significance of the former.  Last comes God (her fourth point), reacting to "obedience" (or lack thereof).  And then, tacked on at the very end, comes the LDS Jesus who gives chances and helps those who help themselves.  I say "LDS Jesus" because by now we are quite far from Jesus as revealed in Scripture.     

Admit it, Scott, this is very typical LDS teaching.  You've listened to variations of it hundreds if not thousands of times.  So maybe those critics have a point.  And maybe it's been demonstrated in this very thread.  Think about it.  Try to imagine how it looks from outside.  That's all I'm asking you. 

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If it's in "everything we say"--but you don't actually say it--is it fair to label your critics ignorant? 

Her teaching technique aside, Meadowchick's message (as she shared in the OP) is pretty standard LDS fare, in my personal experience.  Just follow her outline, one through four:  An emphasis on what you do ("good things" - her first point).  Followed by a vague notion of repentance (point two) and sin (point three).  Vague because the latter is indistinguishable from mistake (which the Lego analogy doesn't help).  And this lack of distinction calls into question the meaning/significance of the former.  Last comes God (her fourth point), reacting to "obedience" (or lack thereof).  And then, tacked on at the very end, comes the LDS Jesus who gives chances and helps those who help themselves.  I say "LDS Jesus" because by now we are quite far from Jesus as revealed in Scripture.     

Admit it, Scott, this is very typical LDS teaching.  You've listened to variations of it hundreds if not thousands of times.  So maybe those critics have a point.  And maybe it's been demonstrated in this very thread.  Think about it.  Try to imagine how it looks from outside.  That's all I'm asking you. 

--Erik

And yet I saw something different this time by virtue of the object lesson. There was a powerful moment there when we looked at the pattern that has been somewhat disfigured: we still had information to "help us remember Him and help us "always have His Spirit to be with us." Righteousness and faith had built a lifeline, back to Christ.

And I think we were able to convey the importance and blessing of repentance related to the context of chastity without undermining the seriousness of sexual sin.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And yet I saw something different this time by virtue of the object lesson. There was a powerful moment there when we looked at the pattern that has been somewhat disfigured: we still had information to "help us remember Him and help us "always have His Spirit to be with us." Righteousness and faith had built a lifeline, back to Christ.

And I think we were able to convey the importance and blessing of repentance related to the context of chastity without undermining the seriousness of sexual sin.

To be clear, I wasn't intending to bash you, Meadowchick, and I'm not suggesting you didn't accomplish your objective.  To be honest, Scott's posts make me a little crazy.  How a person can have a career in journalism and not somewhere along the way pick up a little empathy for those with different views, even critical ones--it kinda blows my mind. 

But since I have you here again, let me ask you to unpack a bit further.  How would you have the young women in your charge understand that word repentance, what it means, when it applies?  It's a big topic to be sure.  Martin Luther devoted much of his Ninety-Five Theses thereto (and the first of these is for the ages).  You were addressing teenagers, I get that.  But give it a go, if you kindly would.    

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Five Solas said:
1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To be clear, I wasn't intending to bash you, Meadowchick, and I'm not suggesting you didn't accomplish your objective.  To be honest, Scott's posts make me a little crazy.  How a person can have a career in journalism and not somewhere along the way pick up a little empathy for those with different views, even critical ones--it kinda blows my mind. 

But since I have you here again, let me ask you to unpack a bit further.  How would you have the young women in your charge understand that word repentance, what it means, when it applies?  It's a big topic to be sure.  Martin Luther devoted much of his Ninety-Five Theses thereto (and the first of these is for the ages).  You were addressing teenagers, I get that.  But give it a go, if you kindly would.    

--Erik

Oh I didn't feel bashed and I thoroughly understand the typicalness of The Mormon Lesson and was aware of it this time. Honestly, most of the time, I figure a lesson has done well, be it as student or teacher, if it's added one new dimension to thinking about the subject, even if all that is is the Spirit.

Repentence: it is not necessarily a sin to make a mistake, but it might be a sin to not correct a mistake once we're aware of it. So repentence can be rather broad. And it should be, to allow for the small moves that often make major change possible.

With the Legos, I saw the mistake the instant it started. I only said we needed to "repent" once we all were aware of the mistake.

This view of repentence does generate the potential of being overwhelmed by flaws and inadequacies, to be sure. But the more limited view results in being overburdened with the consequences of "non-sin-mistakes."

So, to resolve this conundrum,  we have to get used to repentence as a blessed everyday lifestyle. Prioritising soon becomes necessary,  as well as finding peace despite our weak selves. Constantly returning to that core identity as a beloved child of God eventually--hopefully sooner than later--becomes the number 1 step of Repentance!  (Pretty cool, eh?)

 

 

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post

And sorry about the internal comment thing...I'll try to fix it!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To be clear, I wasn't intending to bash you, Meadowchick, and I'm not suggesting you didn't accomplish your objective.  To be honest, Scott's posts make me a little crazy.  How a person can have a career in journalism and not somewhere along the way pick up a little empathy for those with different views, even critical ones--it kinda blows my mind. 

But since I have you here again, let me ask you to unpack a bit further.  How would you have the young women in your charge understand that word repentance, what it means, when it applies?  It's a big topic to be sure.  Martin Luther devoted much of his Ninety-Five Theses thereto (and the first of these is for the ages).  You were addressing teenagers, I get that.  But give it a go, if you kindly would.    

--Erik

Oh I didn't feel bashed and I thoroughly understand the typicalness of The Mormon Lesson and was aware of it this time. Honestly, most of the time, I figure a lesson has done well, be it as student or teacher, if it's added one new dimension to thinking about the subject, even if all that is is the Spirit.

Repentence: it is not necessarily a sin to make a mistake, but it might be a sin to not correct a mistake once we're aware of it. So repentence can be rather broad. And it should be, to allow for the small moves that often make major change possible.

With the Legos, I saw the mistake the instant it started. I only said we needed to "repent" once we all were aware of the mistake.

This view of repentence does generate the potential of being overwhelmed by flaws and inadequacies, to be sure. But the more limited view results in being overburdened with the consequences of "non-sin-mistakes."

So, to resolve this conundrum,  we have to get used to repentence as a blessed everyday lifestyle. Prioritising soon becomes necessary,  as well as finding peace despite our weak selves. Constantly returning to that core identity as a beloved child of God eventually--hopefully sooner than later--becomes the number 1 thing to repent toward! (Pretty cool, eh?)

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Oh I didn't feel bashed and I thoroughly understand the typicalness of The Mormon Lesson and was aware of it this time. Honestly, most of the time, I figure a lesson has done well, be it as student or teacher, if it's added one new dimension to thinking about the subject, even if all that is is the Spirit.

Repentence: it is not necessarily a sin to make a mistake, but it might be a sin to not correct a mistake once we're aware of it. So repentence can be rather broad. And it should be, to allow for the small moves that often make major change possible.

With the Legos, I saw the mistake the instant it started. I only said we needed to "repent" once we all were aware of the mistake.

This view of repentence does generate the potential of being overwhelmed by flaws and inadequacies, to be sure. But the more limited view results in being overburdened with the consequences of "non-sin-mistakes."

So, to resolve this conundrum,  we have to get used to repentence as a blessed everyday lifestyle. Prioritising soon becomes necessary,  as well as finding peace despite our weak selves. Constantly returning to that core identity as a beloved child of God eventually--hopefully sooner than later--becomes the number 1 thing to repent toward! (Pretty cool, eh?)

Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

--Jesus (Luke 13:3)

Appreciate the reply and rather than critique it--I'm going to ask you one more favor, Meadowchick.  Link your favorite LDS talk or article on the topic of repentance.  I'll read it and offer any thoughts on it and yours above.  

In return I'll do the same--a few short words on the topic from a contemporary pastor & Bible teacher, John Piper.  Here: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-jesus-demand-to-repent

Time permitting, take a look and share your thoughts.

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

--Jesus (Luke 13:3)

Appreciate the reply and rather than critique it--I'm going to ask you one more favor, Meadowchick.  Link your favorite LDS talk or article on the topic of repentance.  I'll read it and offer any thoughts on it and yours above.  

In return I'll do the same--a few short words on the topic from a contemporary pastor & Bible teacher, John Piper.  Here: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-jesus-demand-to-repent

Time permitting, take a look and share your thoughts.

--Erik

My favorite LDS talk on repentance is 3 Nephi 12/Matthew 5:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12?lang=eng

I really like your article and especially the emphasis on inner change. I appreciate very much the note about how Christ is addressing the sinner, not the righteous, and not because there are any righteous who don't need repentence, but because those who call themselves righteous will not hear Him.

That is a comfort to me that Christ acknowledges that there are those who do not truly hear even when they physically hear Him. It's as if He understands our frustrations, too, with the unhearing hearer, and it also challenges me to hear all the way to my innermost core what Christ teaches. Let it apply to me.

The inner change is also what resonates with me the most about 3 Nephi 12 (or Matthew 5): The elevation of the law to form a purer, more integrated whole person.

Repentence is about turning back to God.  We want to be near Him, so in the event of any obstacle, we endeavour to find Him again.

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/23/2016 at 1:30 AM, Meadowchik said:

My favorite LDS talk on repentance is 3 Nephi 12/Matthew 5:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12?lang=eng

I really like your article and especially the emphasis on inner change. I appreciate very much the note about how Christ is addressing the sinner, not the righteous, and not because there are any righteous who don't need repentence, but because those who call themselves righteous will not hear Him.

That is a comfort to me that Christ acknowledges that there are those who do not truly hear even when they physically hear Him. It's as if He understands our frustrations, too, with the unhearing hearer, and it also challenges me to hear all the way to my innermost core what Christ teaches. Let it apply to me.

The inner change is also what resonates with me the most about 3 Nephi 12 (or Matthew 5): The elevation of the law to form a purer, more integrated whole person.

Repentence is about turning back to God.  We want to be near Him, so in the event of any obstacle, we endeavour to find Him again.

I was anticipating your response would be to link some chewy talk or article by a contemporary LDS authority on the topic of repentance.  But that's not what happened.  Instead I got a link to 3rd Nephi and a reference to the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew.  Interesting & unexpected. 

I think you understood Piper on the subject very well.  Appreciate you taking time to give it a read. 

On the subject of inner change--it's worth doing a word search on "heart" in the Bible.  It appears many hundreds of times across the books, Old Testament and New.  It's clearly of great significance to God, greater, I would suggest, than anything we might say or do. 

I will offer one critique of the above - and it's in your last six words.  God isn't lost.  He doesn't need to be found.  People are lost.  And He finds them.

:0)

If you could have a do-over in the lesson you composed & delivered, what, if anything, might you change?

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I was anticipating your response would be to link some chewy talk or article by a contemporary LDS authority on the topic of repentance.  But that's not what happened.  Instead I got a link to 3rd Nephi and a reference to the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew.  Interesting & unexpected. 

I think you understood Piper on the subject very well.  Appreciate you taking time to give it a read. 

On the subject of inner change--it's worth doing a word search on "heart" in the Bible.  It appears many hundreds of times across the books, Old Testament and New.  It's clearly of great significance to God, greater, I would suggest, than anything we might say or do. 

I will offer one critique of the above - and it's in your last six words.  God isn't lost.  He doesn't need to be found.  People are lost.  And He finds them.

:0)

If you could have a do-over in the lesson you composed & delivered, what, if anything, might you change?

--Erik

My most favorite single line about repentance is that of becoming as a little child. To me, it's always conveyed that inner change of heart meaning.

Thank you for the Piper article, I really enjoyed it.

As a redo, I'd tie in Christ explicitly early on. It's usually an effort I make but absent-mindedly didn't do this time.

How about you? How would you teach a small group of young women, ages 12 to 18, about guarding their virtue? You'd have thirty minutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/20/2016 at 11:54 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think what many critics of Mormonism fail to realize is that Jesus Christ is a given in pretty much everything we say and do in our worship services and instructional settings. Whatever the point of doctrine might be, He is at the heart.

For example, those who say Mormons ought to be talking about Christ instead of genealogy betray their own ignorance of Latter-day Saint doctrine. Our focus on family history stems from our belief that salvation and the blessings of Christ's atonement must be available to all, including our kindred dead.

 

 

On 9/21/2016 at 9:52 PM, Five Solas said:

If it's in "everything we say"--but you don't actually say it--is it fair to label your critics ignorant? ...

 

 

On 9/22/2016 at 8:01 AM, Five Solas said:

To be clear, I wasn't intending to bash you, Meadowchick, and I'm not suggesting you didn't accomplish your objective.  To be honest, Scott's posts make me a little crazy.  How a person can have a career in journalism and not somewhere along the way pick up a little empathy for those with different views, even critical ones--it kinda blows my mind. ...

 

I used to have a standard signature line that I included with every one of my posts. It went something like this:

Quote

If one undertakes to publicly criticize the religious faith of another, the critic's responsibility is first to understand the faith he is criticizing.

Under that principle, then, the answer to your question is yes, the critic may be regarded as ignorant if he does not, at the very least, recognize that in considering the in-house instruction within other faith groups, there is in all likelihood an implied and shared understanding among and between believers that he as an outsider would not be privy to. And he ought to go beyond that realization and do the homework to familiarize himself with that shared understanding before making even the first foray into publicly criticizing that religious faith; otherwise, he is indeed by definition approaching the discussion from a position of ignorance.

Now then, unless you are doing a very good job of feigning knowledge that you don't have, I gather that you are fairly well acquainted with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, and, that being the case, you ought to already know without having it spelled out to you that Jesus Christ is at the center of our doctrine, teachings and worship and that everything we say and do stems from our belief in and devotion to Christ.

Furthermore, if you will look back through the earlier posts on this thread, you will note that I already made the point that in our instruction, we Latter-day Saints should make it a routine matter to always tie our teaching back to Jesus Christ and His gospel. Meadowchik has made it clear that she is in full accord with this point. So, if your quibbling has any redeeming merit, it has given us a good reminder to make that a part of all our teaching. For that, I thank you.

So I'm sorry if what I said made you "crazy," but I stand by it, and you need to calm down and ponder the verity of what I have said here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My most favorite single line about repentance is that of becoming as a little child. To me, it's always conveyed that inner change of heart meaning.

Thank you for the Piper article, I really enjoyed it.

As a redo, I'd tie in Christ explicitly early on. It's usually an effort I make but absent-mindedly didn't do this time.

How about you? How would you teach a small group of young women, ages 12 to 18, about guarding their virtue? You'd have thirty minutes.

 

Well, it's much easier to play the critic...

But with two daughters, kindergarten & second grade--teaching is more than hypothetical.  They had swimming lessons this morning and are now playing in the "castle" in the back yard--with help from my three year old son (I use his picture for my avatar).  It's a very pleasant afternoon, in Seattle.

A few quick thoughts, were you to leave it to me--

I wouldn't call it "virtue."  That's a somewhat archaic term that appears a handful of times in the 400+ year-old prose of the KJV.  I don't think it's useful in 2016 in the context of sexual sin.   

But what is useful for them to know? 

First, it's useful to know that sexual intimacy and its pleasure is a good thing.  God intended it for our good--in the context of marriage.  Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh") is repeated in the New Testament, in the Gospels and in Paul's letters.  To take it a step further, marriage illustrates the relationship of Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:32).  And Christ keeps his covenant forever. 

Second, it's useful to understand what happens outside the context of marriage:  Men use women for their pleasure, become bored & discard them.  Women, in turn, use sex to manipulate men.  (The reverse in each case can also occur, of course).  Either way causes lasting damage, impairs trust and thereby impairs intimacy in subsequent relationships.  It may lead to disease, even to murder (abortion).  God knows this and his commands are for our lasting good.

Third, sexual sin isn't some special category, better or worse than other sins.  As James wrote, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (2:10).  And as Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). 

Fourth (yes, I'm going to keep this to four points--as did you), Jesus died in our place, for our sins.  He will lose no one who comes to him, not matter what (John 6:37-40).  And our response is love, manifest in obedience.  And why is any of this possible?  Because He loved us first (1 John 4:19). 

And there's only 30 minutes, so I'll forgo your Legos.

;0)

What do you think?

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...Meadowchik has made it clear that she is in full accord with this point. So, if your quibbling ...

I'd try to defend myself, but she gives you a rep point every time you tap your keyboard--so I guess it must be as you say, Scott...

;0)

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'd try to defend myself, but she gives you a rep point every time you tap your keyboard--so I guess it must be as you say, Scott...

;0)

--Erik

Defend yourself against what? The point that Latter-day Saints should routinely tie their teachings to Christ and His gospel? I thought we were all three agreed on that point.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I wouldn't call it "virtue."  That's a somewhat archaic term that appears a handful of times in the 400+ year-old prose of the KJV.  I don't think it's useful in 2016 in the context of sexual sin.   

 

 

You'd better alert the publishers of Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Here is a copy-and-paste from their online entry for virtue.

 

Quote

 

Simple Definition of virtue

  • : morally good behavior or character

  • : a good and moral quality

  • : the good result that comes from something

 

 

  1. How embarrassing it must be for them to be publishing an archaic definition. Then again, maybe it isn't archaic at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Senator
      Hi All,
      This past Sunday was Fast Sunday for us.  So, as usual I get a knock at the door and I think, "it must be the deacons collecting fast offerings".  Well, I open the door to find one deacon, and one beehive!
      Wha???
      I've never seen this before. Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a change in things?
       
    • By Meadowchik
      This morning I came across a notion expressed by an LDS member, positing that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.
      I would like to respond to that idea here.
      As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.
      On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.
      Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.
      Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.
      Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.
      In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.
      I believe that Christ expects us to love "the least" because, in part, He wants all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.
      Thoughts?
    • By Super Mom
      We are currently living in Europe and do not speak the language in our ward.  Almost all the adult members speak English, to a degree, but all the meetings are held in another language with translation offered to us.  My husband and I both serve in the ward and we attend every Sunday.
      The problem is that our daughter is now old enough to attend Young Women.  The girls her age do not speak English but are nice enough.  She is already an introvert but the language issues make it worse.  She does not want to go to the weekly activities or even to church on Sunday.  This is having a major impact on her testimony and, in my opinion, she needs more interaction with English-speaking LDS girls and youth leaders.  I have looked online for a Skype YW class or Skype Sunday School Youth class, but have found nothing.  I know that our Farsi friends in our ward meet weekly on Skype for Sunday School, but I have not found anyone meeting in English.  I have contacts in the U.S. I could ask for their YW and youth classes to Skype with our daughter, but then there would be time zone issues.  Has anyone heard of an official (or unofficial) Skype class for expats?  Or for YW who are home bound?  Any ideas?  Thanks in advance.
    • By rockpond
      Last week Jana Riess published this guess post by Mette Harrison on her Flunking Sainthood blog.  It's a letter from a mom to her daughter's seminary teacher.
      In the letter she discusses six topics and how they are addressed in seminary:
      LGBT issues Faith and Intellect Identity MIssion Marriage and Family Exposure to other religions Yesterday Riess published a response from a seminary teacher (not the actual seminary teacher the letter was written to).  Here's the great response by this teacher.  You kinda have to read the first letter for the response to make sense.  But, I think it's worth it... his responses are insightful.
       
    • By cshaw
      Can anyone give me some perspective on Luke 8:46?  From an LDS perspective, what Virtue did Jesus percieve had left him when he was touched?  Almost everything I can find, from LDS sources, seems to focus heavily on the virtue of chastity.  I assume the virtue Jesus felt was a loss of power within himself?  The power was gained by being the perfect example of living all the virtues combined? And there is some link between virtue, healing and Melchizedek Priesthood?  Can anyone help enlighten me on this? 
×
×
  • Create New...