Tacenda Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 Maybe just an individual's concept, maybe not even from the top. I'm not saying it's right, but just more of the same stuff. http://rationalfaiths.com/my-daughters-deserve-better-giving-and-getting/
changed Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) <img src="https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/magazines/new-era/2015/12/december-2015-new-era-magazine_1615291_prt.pdf"> original article - link Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having Getter’s shoulders squared with confidence, while the Giver’s are rounded and less self-assured? 1.What message is trying to be conveyed by having Getter’s shoulders squared with aggression/confrontation, while the Giver’s are rounded and more humble/meek? Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Giver holding an obvious scripture case while the Getter is not? What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Giver wearing a Young Women’s medallion while the Getter is not? obviously someone who reads the scriptures, and does those things worthy of a YW medallion will be better educated to understand what giving is all about. Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Giver smiling and the Getter is not? The message is obvious - it is better to give than to get, and living with your heart in the right place does make you happy, while living selfishly makes you unhappy. Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Getter’s skirt just below the knees and wearing a short-sleeve shirt, while the Giver’s skirt is almost to the ankles and wearing a long-sleeved shirt? The message of the importance of modesty - not that the other girl is immodest, but the happy girl seems to be dressed in a more maternal/humble way indicating where her priorities lie. Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Getter appear more mature while the Giver appears to be infantilized? If being meek/teachable/humble/happy makes someone look younger, I won't disagree. The secret elixir of youth? Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by having the Giver’s toes pointed inward, appearing to lack confidence, in a more submissive-type posture, while the Getter’s feet are well-planted and self-assured? Again - being confrontational/defensive type of posture, vs. a humble/meek/teachable posture. There is a time for every thing under heaven - a time to be peaceful, and a time to be at war. Thinking of others and how to best help them is a time of humility and meekness. What message is trying to be conveyed by having two young women depicted and not two young men? Men are primarily the providers, and women are primarily the nurturers. Nurturing and providing are both ways of giving, and the message could have been done either way. It seems the poster would have been offended whichever gender was chosen though. Quote What message is trying to be conveyed by implying that a young woman’s self-worth is achieved only through giving and sacrificing for others and not by doing things to improve herself? This is a true message - in order to have self-worth, you have to actually be worth something, and you have to be worth something to someone. Self-worth does not come from being selfish, it comes from being selfless - losing your ego etc. etc. Quote Is the message that is trying to be conveyed that the Church wants women who lack confidence so they will kowtow to men? The church, and the scriptures, and God want all of his followers to be meek/humble/selfless/loving/peaceful - not confrontational/prideful/aggressive/selfish/vulgar/immodest etc. I think the article and picture are wonderful - subtle, but it gets the point across. Edited January 1, 2016 by changed 2
cinepro Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) I think the graphic conveys some good principles, especially for teenagers, but it could also be seen as reinforcing certain stereotypes about women. It would be interesting to see an equivalent graphic for young men. If someone hadn't told me the "bad" questions were bad, I would have thought they were all entirely appropriate and legitimate for anyone to ask. So I guess I'm a Getter. But the best question is from the end of the blog: Why can't she be both? Edited January 1, 2016 by cinepro 3
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) I think if one only looks at church from 'what I get' it can be a problem, but we are also to count our blessings so ignoring those questions completely doesn't seem spiritually wise either. We are to be grateful, after all. Is it just a graphic? Add-on: at the end it says it is okay to think of the getter's questions. Personally I think we are commanded to do so in order that we may be grateful for the bounty of the Lord. We should consider such questions everytime we kneel to pray imo at the very least. There is an implication that such questions are not as good and a person who asks them a lot is selfish. And the graphic does have a weird submissive vibe I don't like, besides arms being crossed there is nothing wrong with the getter and that could mean anything but with the implied bad/good setup it makes it strange. The giver one triggered the thought "Disney Princess pose", which is not a positive one for me. I think a better pitch would have been showing one person in a thinking pose with the questions intermixed around them to avoid the implication that is given by the graphic, though not so much the article, that if one wants to be the best Saint they can, they will never think of the benefit they get from following commandments. The better/best lesson to be taught imo is to think in both ways, with an emphasis in the getting questions of "what does God want me to get from...." and giving "what does God see as best for me to do to serve Him and others". Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm
Tacenda Posted January 1, 2016 Author Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: I think if one only looks at church from 'what I get' it can be a problem, but we are also to count our blessings so ignoring those questions completely doesn't seem spiritually wise either. We are to be grateful, after all. Is it just a graphic? I believe so. ETA: I guess there is more than the graphic, which btw I don't care for the artist's rendition. https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/12/are-you-a-giver-or-a-getter?lang=eng Edited January 1, 2016 by Tacenda
Avatar4321 Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 That is controversial? People will look for anything to complain about 3
changed Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less. ... we are also to count our blessings so ignoring those questions completely doesn't seem spiritually wise either. We are to be grateful, after all. in the story of the lepers, all of the lepers were grateful and happy for being cleansed, but only one leper placed that gratitude where it belonged - and I think felt the most joy for having recognized the better part. Gratitude does not need to be self-centered is all... it can be other-centered too. Edited January 1, 2016 by changed
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 17 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I believe so. ETA: I guess there is more than the graphic, which btw I don't care for the artist's rendition. https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/12/are-you-a-giver-or-a-getter?lang=eng I agree with you, see my edit. The article isn't bad, though I think it could be better because it leaves out gratitude which is very strange to me. I think it may be an overreaction to the idea of the "me generation". There are those who do focus on primarily what church can do for them and I've seen that as leading towards great dissatisfaction at times, but I don't think either the problem or the positive aspects of seeing personal blessings were dealt with significantly. Sometimes trying to make something simple and memorable---a worthy goal in teaching---can lead to imbalance. I don't think they needed to double the article size, but an additional two paragraphs and altering the graphic to one person without any hints of worthiness/modesty would have conveyed a more realistic as well as appropriate message imo. 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, changed said: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less. in the story of the lepers, all of the lepers were grateful and happy for being cleansed, but only one leper placed that gratitude where it belonged - and I think felt the most joy for having recognized the better part. Gratitude does not need to be self-centered is all... it can be other-centered too. And there was nothing wrong with the lepers being happy they were healthy, they just didn't take it further to expressing a recognition of where that blessing came from. The leper who returned wasn't just grateful because now he could care for his family, etc. but what it did for him as well or so I read it (no longer had to fear the pain and death, be an outsider). The graphic is implying thinking about how a temple marriage or tithing blesses one is not a spiritually mature thing to do at all. Even the article implies it is just acceptable, but not beneficial to one's soul to do so. Do you really think telling our young women and men to avoid thinking about the blessings they can personally receive from the temple is a good thing? Because that is what the graphic is doing. It is not a nuanced approach. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) See this article that actually treats the question of what blessings will I receive from a temple marriage as a good question and provides a number of self-centered reasons for seeking it: https://www.lds.org/youth/article/why-temple-marriage?lang=eng Edited January 2, 2016 by Calm 2
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Taken in the context of everything else that is taught, the article isn't a major problem. The graphic, however, is confusing and conveying messages that conflict with other teachings. Not horrible, but it is sad for me to see lost opportunities. Given that our youth need to be able to stand up to the pressures of the world and we are looking at them as future beacons to the world of and for the Gospel, I hope for more confidence to be expressed in images, not promoting the image of shyness or being more comfotable in the background as the 'Disney pose' version conveys imo. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm
CV75 Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Maybe just an individual's concept, maybe not even from the top. I'm not saying it's right, but just more of the same stuff. What, is 40 the new 15? Wait until he gets a load of https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/01/young-adults/revealed-realities-of-mortality?lang=eng Why can’t we be both? “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
Calm Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) 44 minutes ago, CV75 said: What, is 40 the new 15? Wait until he gets a load of https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/01/young-adults/revealed-realities-of-mortality?lang=eng Why can’t we be both? “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” Doubleminded means being indecisve, not being able to keep two types of thoughts in one's head. That article presents blessings from the point of view of what they can do for the individual..."getting" in the terminology of the previous article. Edited January 1, 2016 by Calm 1
CV75 Posted January 1, 2016 Posted January 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Doubleminded means being indecisve, not being able to keep two types of thoughts in one's head. That article presents blessings from the point of view of what they can do for the individual..."getting" in the terminology of the previous article. Yes, and I think being decidedly equal in holding diametrically opposed attitudes after criticizing the discouragement of one attitude, such as suggested in the blog, is a form of mixed-up undecidedness that isn’t quite an integration of the best of both worlds (as if the laws of two kingdoms can be received)—D&C 88:38. I don’t think it was very responsible to set the daughter up by not inviting her to review the article and the drawing together as a single message. They withheld context, and created a stumbling block for her to miss the most helpful interpretation of each. I don't imagine they meant to do that consciously; they were likely just looking at the drawing. But why didn’t they read the whole article if they were so concerned about their daughters, especially after putting so much effort into writing to the editors? From the article (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/12/are-you-a-giver-or-a-getter?lang=eng), I get that we all have a measure of inward and outward thinking (“It’s OK to think about blessings you’ll receive, but…”), and rightly so. I take the several questions to be introspective, to be asked in the assessment of oneself (“inward” in a sense, but not in the same way as the article intends us to avoid) and not as a means to judge others (an “outward” process, but again in a different sense than the article encourages). A self-identified tendency toward self-interest over the interest of a neighbor (D&C 82:19) is a signal that some attitude adjustment is in order. The same message is in a January article, “Get Over Yourself”: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/01/get-over-yourself?lang=eng There seems to be a theme! (I wonder why!) LOL I appreciate you many thoughtful comments and I hope you have a Happy New Year Calm!
cinepro Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Calm said: See this article that actually treats the question of what blessings will I receive from a temple marriage as a good questions and provides a number of self-centered reasons for seeking it: https://www.lds.org/youth/article/why-temple-marriage?lang=eng And here's one that answers the question "How will I be blessed by paying tithes and fast offerings?" “Tithing is a commandment with a promise,” says Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He says the Lord will bless, both temporally and spiritually, those who faithfully pay a full tithe. And, he says, the Lord will bless their nations as well. https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/tithing-brings-blessings?lang=eng
Rain Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 7 hours ago, CV75 said: Yes, and I think being decidedly equal in holding diametrically opposed attitudes after criticizing the discouragement of one attitude, such as suggested in the blog, is a form of mixed-up undecidedness that isn’t quite an integration of the best of both worlds (as if the laws of two kingdoms can be received)—D&C 88:38. I don’t think it was very responsible to set the daughter up by not inviting her to review the article and the drawing together as a single message. They withheld context, and created a stumbling block for her to miss the most helpful interpretation of each. I don't imagine they meant to do that consciously; they were likely just looking at the drawing. But why didn’t they read the whole article if they were so concerned about their daughters, especially after putting so much effort into writing to the editors? From the article (https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/12/are-you-a-giver-or-a-getter?lang=eng), I get that we all have a measure of inward and outward thinking (“It’s OK to think about blessings you’ll receive, but…”), and rightly so. I take the several questions to be introspective, to be asked in the assessment of oneself (“inward” in a sense, but not in the same way as the article intends us to avoid) and not as a means to judge others (an “outward” process, but again in a different sense than the article encourages). A self-identified tendency toward self-interest over the interest of a neighbor (D&C 82:19) is a signal that some attitude adjustment is in order. The same message is in a January article, “Get Over Yourself”: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2016/01/get-over-yourself?lang=eng There seems to be a theme! (I wonder why!) LOL I appreciate you many thoughtful comments and I hope you have a Happy New Year Calm! I somewhat agree with you on it is better to show the daughter both the article and text to get context, however today many of the youth won't pay attention to the article at all. They are used to pictures/meme and the graphic may be all they ever pay attention to. 1
CV75 Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rain said: I somewhat agree with you on it is better to show the daughter both the article and text to get context, however today many of the youth won't pay attention to the article at all. They are used to pictures/meme and the graphic may be all they ever pay attention to. Yes, in general youth are moving away from reading (but what would Jesus have us do in Zion?). But going through all that careful analysis and critique of the drawing warrants equal attention to and consideration of the article's message. Consistent with the best of a "Why not both?" attitude. I think the daughter's question was taken out of context for the sake of the blog anyway. I think this is a good example of adults exploiting their kids to make their point. I'm sure the girl meant to convey that “It’s OK to think about blessings you’ll receive, but…” as the article points out. Edited January 2, 2016 by CV75
telnetd Posted January 2, 2016 Posted January 2, 2016 Let's see if a version comes out for males. Gail
CV75 Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 9 hours ago, telnetd said: Let's see if a version comes out for males. Gail I think this article and the drawing are intended for consumption by both male and female. I recall some 30+ years ago the lesson included a visual comparison of the effects of living by the Spirit and not. A male model was used in that instance, the images of the former becoming progressively more clean-cut and bright-eyed and the latter becoming more degenerated in his general appearance and facial expression.
Calm Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) I don't think older online issues have the pictures that went with them. Can't remember when they started using them. So can't compare using your example save from your memory unfortunately. I do remember plenty of images of men influenced by darkness or light. Don't remember thinking "disney princess pose" with any of them though. Darkness shots for guys if significant tend to me to carry the idea of furtiveness or despair, not confidence. Lightness shots will have the guy with head up, shoulders firm, etc. Edited January 3, 2016 by Calm
Glenn101 Posted January 3, 2016 Posted January 3, 2016 The reactions to the article are interesting, and pretty predictable. It doesn't matter what the Church produces, the Youth Leaders produce, there will be criticism. An analysis of body language in a generic drawing???? An analysis of two young women, both dressed modestly, but pointing out subtle differences??? And, as to number 11, Why cant' they be both??? Well, we are both. However, the Christ is the ideal. Glenn 2
Recommended Posts