Asked to teach a class about answering and dealing with hard questions

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church exists to bring people to God.  God hasn't changed location.
Why should the Church take them to a different place than it has before?  And what on earth could be more valuable to the members?

I agree that the church exists to bring people to God.  I want to see the church continue to bring people to God, but its not able to effectively accomplish this mission if it can't connect and doesn't work for large portions of society.  The church should be flexible.  The church should change with the times.  The church should assess which principles are core values and be willing to change everything else.  And when faced with new information the church should even consider its core values and whether they accurately represent the divine will, or whether they were in error using older information.  In summary the church should be "true and living".  

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 In summary the church should be "true and living".  

Like this?  j/k 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_and_Living_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Saints_of_the_Last_Days

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Like this?  j/k 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_and_Living_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Saints_of_the_Last_Days

Ha!  Actually I had a missionary couple from Manti that I'm pretty sure was connected to this group.  They got sent home early when President found out they were conducting prayer circles in their district meetings with the other missionaries.  

[rongo]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We can focus on how the student isn't "resilient" enough to cope with bad lessons, or we can focus on making lessons better.

I think both viewpoints are important. We should always be trying to make the quality of teaching and the class experience as good as possible, but bored students should also be able to get something out of classes or lessons where there isn't much to work with. If they are completely unable to do this, then the breakdown is in the home and upbringing --- not the Church.

I sit politely in a gospel doctrine class that might literally be the worst class I've ever been in. Week after week the class shrinks as people decide to be elsewhere. What is the main problem? That people aren't polite enough to sit in a substandard class, or that the class is substandard?

I attended a horrific high school in Chicago. My children's first 10 years of school were at a horrific school with 99%+ children of illegal aliens or parents who didn't speak English (high smuggling corridor, with many families helping coyotes and smugglers. Some families actually involved). If I had a dollar for every person who expressed shock that wasn't home-schooling my children, or getting them into a charter school, I would be rich. But, in both my and my children's cases, the oft-times substandard teaching and environment didn't affect them. I had high test scores, and my oldest will be the valedictorian at a large public high school. My other children are, as my patriarchal blessing promises, "ornaments unto the Church." Despite what could be argued to be a poor high school education, I got a lot out of mine. I had some good teachers, and many bad ones, but I tried to learn from all of them. My children are able to learn, even if there is chaos around them --- and they have a directive, as a member of our family, to be a bright ray of sunshine in their teachers' and classmates' lives, even if they aren't very good or conditions are not ideal. 

I agree with you that Church can be, and often is, boring --- often because the teachers make it that way. But real learners can learn despite this. This is what is sorely lacking and has really declined over the years --- including in the Church. I put up a quote and joke of the day outside my room that I change every day. One of the quotes is from Blaise Pascal: "All human evil comes from this: a man's inability to sit still in a room."  It blows me away how many adults, youth, and children are unable to sit longer than 20 minutes during sacrament meeting. They are constantly getting up and walking around. Most high school students who want to "get a drink" or "use the restroom" really just want to get up and walk around. Good teachers break up the lesson and include some activity and "get oxygen to the brain" tasks (which entails standing up), but even if they don't, people ought to be able to tough it out. I'm convinced that this one trait alone is one factor that separates the achievers from those that fall short.

I've even discussed the class privately with the bishopric to make sure they were aware of how bad it is. They are. They've heard from many people and have witnessed it themselves yet they choose not to make a change. Why? Because they figure people will generally go where they are supposed to be so there is no reason to make a change that could potentially embarrass the teacher by getting a quick release. 

You've been a bishop, so I know that you know that releases can be, and often are, more complicated than "performance reviews." Sometimes, we are trying to help people grow. Sometimes people need to hang in there because a release would be devastating to the person's psyche and feelings of self-worth. Etc. 

Yes, it makes me bristle. The church is exists to fulfill the needs of the saints, not for the people to fulfill the needs of the church.

I think that "tough love" sometimes, maybe even often, *does* fulfill the needs of the saints --- much more so than the path of least resistance for them. In other words, what might appear to be done more to fulfill the needs of the Church may in fact be fulfilling the needs of the individual. Even if the individual kicks against it and doesn't recognize it.

I acknowledge that youth sometimes require a creative approach so I'm not necessarily faulting your strategy for organizing classes.  However, if a youth has a choice between attending his assigned class, his unassigned class, or no class at all, I would rather the leadership be flexible enough to let the youth and his parents take ownership of the worship experience and let him go where he will participate. Gone are the days when youth (and many others) will go where they are told simply because an authority told them to. Millennial's are less accepting of organizations and power structures, and are less likely to accept authoritative demands for what they should do,  

Luckily, I don't have any youth who aren't attending church because of our strategic Sunday School class assignments. If I did, I would revisit and prayerfully reconsider. There are some who want to be with their "partners in crime," and they push the boundaries (the SS Presidency has to stay on top of it, and enforce it, but it's worked. At least it gives the SSP something to do!  ).

I realize that the rising generation doesn't respect authority as much as past ones --- especially when they don't feel they have a compelling reason to. I'm not sure that this is a vast improvement over the other extreme, though. 

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

Luckily, I don't have any youth who aren't attending church because of our strategic Sunday School class assignments. If I did, I would revisit and prayerfully reconsider. There are some who want to be with their "partners in crime," and they push the boundaries (the SS Presidency has to stay on top of it, and enforce it, but it's worked. At least it gives the SSP something to do!  ).

I substituted a Sunday School and had a 13-year-old beg to attend the class one year up with her friend. I let her go. She was so happy. I count that as one positive experience she had at church that day. Sometimes a little rule bending is the right thing to do. My husband is the SS President and he told a few kids to go where they felt comfortable. It has worked out very well and their are no tears in the hallways. Win-win. I don't understand why we don't organize Sunday School by school year or by their actual birthday instead of birth year. This is where the problems mostly come from. The kids want to go to class with the kids they are in school with. the current policy doesn't make sense for many adults so there doesn't seem to be a reason to cause a bunch of teenage angst over it.

[Five Solas]

On 2/20/2017 at 9:47 AM, rongo said:

My father was a YSA bishop for six years, and I have been a bishop over two different wards, and a bishopric counselor in two different wards other than those. Retention and activity of youth and young adults is a major problem in the Church.

There were no worries, concerns, or skepticism (at least not apparent ones) from among the 242 that we had. If anything, several expressed that they have questions, but that they aren't doubts, concerns, or worries. ...

Appreciate the response, rongo.  I (and perhaps other readers) see your two sentences in bold as being in some tension.  On the one hand you recognize retention is a major problem, that some material number of those 242 aren't going to stay LDS.  And on the other, you discern no worries, concerns or skepticism. 

I find it extraordinary you stood in front of so many young people, fielded so many interesting questions/topics--and yet could discern nothing from them.  Leading you to conclude the problem lies elsewhere, in broader society, outside of the LDS Church.

It could be exactly as you say, rongo.  So please indulge a different question.  Do you think those kids in that room felt free to express their authentic selves, their real questions and opinions?  Or could it be they felt pressure (from their peers, from their leaders) to conform?  Meaning the reason you discerned nothing--was because they hid it from you. 

Thoughts?

--Erik

_______________________________________________

All that I'm holding in my hand baby is yours to take
All that I'm holding in my head baby is yours to shake
It's yours to shake
Yours to shake

--Greylag

 

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the response, rongo.  I (and perhaps other readers) see your two sentences in bold as being in some tension.  On the one hand you recognize retention is a major problem, that some material number of those 242 aren't going to stay LDS.  And on the other, you discern no worries, concerns or skepticism. 

I understand. You think that there is a disconnect between the fact that many of the youth in our stake will not be active in the LDS Church, and the fact that they didn't have any worries, skepticism, or concerns in an EFY class that you feel they must have (and just didn't want to get into in that time and setting).

It's very simple. They don't have concerns of this type. I have been a counselor in two different bishoprics and a bishop of two different wards in this stake. I have taught many of these kids in school. I have done many firesides and Q&A type things in this stake since 2007. Those few who are deep thinkers and enjoy discussing gospel topics, historical issues, anti-Mormon attacks, etc. have been discussing such things with me, and know that "I'm the guy" and where to find me. The vast super-majority of these youth don't have "throw 'em for a loop" concerns," and they also wouldn't have them if you cornered them and showed them sources critical of the Church. They aren't interested in these things, and aren't that interested in church and religion in general, to be honest (with notable exceptions). For all that, they are good kids, in their way.

I find it extraordinary you stood in front of so many young people, fielded so many interesting questions/topics--and yet could discern nothing from them.  Leading you to conclude the problem lies elsewhere, in broader society, outside of the LDS Church.

I'm sure you do, Erik.  And yet, that's how it went down. And, I think the problem lies in the LDS families, that by and large aren't raising their kids to be interested thinkers about their history, religion, concerns, etc. --- so it's very much inside the LDS Church, and not just a product of the outside society. The whole problem is that many LDS families mirror non-LDS families.

It could be exactly as you say, rongo.  So please indulge a different question.  Do you think those kids in that room felt free to express their

authentic selves, their real questions and opinions?

Without a doubt in my mind. 

 

Or could it be they felt pressure (from their peers, from their leaders) to conform?  Meaning the reason you discerned nothing--was because they hid it from you.

Not at all. Those who had questions and wanted to ask them asked them. Those who didn't ask anything weren't hiding questions they secretly had from me, their peers, and their leaders. The fact was that most kids didn't have questions of their own.

A few of the deep thinkers came up to me after and, apologetically, said that they didn't have any questions about concerns, issues, worries, etc. Their questions are from the perspective and assumption that "it's all true," and they wonder about certain scholarly things out of personal interest and curiousity (i.e., old-style LDS scholarship). But, they aren't racked with doubt and shaken to their core --- even if they didn't ask technical questions in that setting.  

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I understand. You think that there is a disconnect between the fact that many of the youth in our stake will not be active in the LDS Church, and the fact that they didn't have any worries, skepticism, or concerns in an EFY class that you feel they must have (and just didn't want to get into in that time and setting).

It's very simple. They don't have concerns of this type. I have been a counselor in two different bishoprics and a bishop of two different wards in this stake. I have taught many of these kids in school. I have done many firesides and Q&A type things in this stake since 2007. Those few who are deep thinkers and enjoy discussing gospel topics, historical issues, anti-Mormon attacks, etc. have been discussing such things with me, and know that "I'm the guy" and where to find me. The vast super-majority of these youth don't have "throw 'em for a loop" concerns," and they also wouldn't have them if you cornered them and showed them sources critical of the Church. They aren't interested in these things, and aren't that interested in church and religion in general, to be honest (with notable exceptions). For all that, they are good kids, in their way.

...

Well, yes--there must be a disconnect.  You're suggesting LDS attrition is largely the result of indifference and competing priority (which is just another way of saying LDS teaching and leadership fail to inspire passion, commitment).  And you blame families & the larger society for not inculcating kids to be "interested thinkers" (if that's even possible).  

Okay, maybe I've been asking the wrong questions.  Kindly permit me to try again.  What, among the various claims of the LDS Church, do today's LDS youth not find compelling?  Is it just the whole package, or can you narrow it down for us based on your experience? 

--Erik

PS.  Let me unpack this a bit further and maybe you'll at least appreciate why I'm asking the questions. 

A tall order to look back 30+ years (since I was eligible to attend an EFY conference, I never did) and pretend you can see things now as you did then.  I dropped out of my LDS high school seminary program after my junior year.  Hillcrest High in Midvale, UT, class of 1987.  It's a bigger deal than it sounds because back there & then--you got to count LDS seminary credit towards your Utah high school graduation.  And everybody knew seminary was a snooze--which meant the non-LDS had to work harder to graduate, they had to take a real class to make their number.  (A fact more than a little resented by the minority.)  But I chose to join their ranks and work harder.  If nothing else, that will give you a sense of how disillusioned I'd become. 

If I had to put my finger on a single issue that cemented my then growing discomfort with the LDS Church, its leadership, its pretense--it was Mark Hoffman's bombings and reading this covered between the Deseret News (which my parents subscribed to) and the Salt Lake Tribune (which was available in the debate room--yes, I was in the program).  And therein discovering the LDS-owned former simply couldn't be trusted.  The "worthy" tell lies when it suits their purpose.  After Hoffman, any interest in continuing with seminary, becoming an elder, serving a mission--dead & buried.  I returned to activity in the LDS Church after I moved to Seattle in 1988 (to establish residence & attend the University of Washington)--but it was for pragmatic reasons.  I didn't know anyone.  I needed a network to find a place to live.  And frankly, I didn't relate very well to people who drank alcohol (since I'd never done so myself and believed it was inherently bad).  I played along because really, I was scared of people who were different.  Probably like some of the kids in your room.  

I get it, these kids won't have a Mark Hoffman/bombs-going-off-in-my-city experience to shape their thinking, but it seems they must have *something* that discomforts them, or they'd be much stickier than they are.  And I want you to tell me what it is.  But maybe that just isn't possible. 

PPS.  I'm half-expecting you to tell me I just don't get it.  And if you do, no worries.

;0)

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Well, yes--there must be a disconnect. 

By disconnect, you mean "they have to have secret testimony doubts they don't want to share." There could be, but there doesn't have to be. It all depends. I don't think there is, in my experience here with these kids. And you do admit that I was there (and you weren't), and I know them better than you do, right?  

You're suggesting LDS attrition is largely the result of indifference and competing priority

That's a good way to put it. Yes, I attribute most LDS attrition to that. Well put!

(which is just another way of saying LDS teaching and leadership fail to inspire passion, commitment).

Partially, where applicable. Mostly, I lay this at the feet of parents and families.

And you blame families & the larger society for not inculcating kids to be "interested thinkers" (if that's even possible).

Yes, I do. And it is even possible.  Most school kids today are bored by everything and interested in little outside of their electronic world or pop culture, and LDS kids by and large are not much different than they are (with notable exceptions in the world and in the Church).  

What, among the various claims of the LDS Church, do today's LDS youth not find compelling?  Is it just the whole package, or can you narrow it down for us based on your experience?

That's a good question. It has always frustrated me that people just kinds of shrug at the idea of resurrected angels, for example. While teaching people as a missionary, they just kinds of went, "Okay." They should have been really excited or really angry at the idea, but almost nobody is either. This bleeds over into the Church at large. Most members (active members, too) don't ever really think of the ramifications or implications of the foundations of the restoration. Those of us whom this gets out of bed in the morning don't understand this, but the lethargic members look at awe at us. We are the energy spark in the Church --- those who really believe the foundational claims and think about them often --- and look for things like this to happen in our own lives.

Most LDS youth and their families aren't in this boat, despite the efforts of many. And I admit that our heavily correlated curriculum as currently constituted is b-o-r-i-n-g, which doesn't help. I can affect my sphere of influence, but not the Church at large. So, I happily work at fulfilling prophecy given in my and my family's patriarchal blessings, and in the scriptures.

I really don't think that one can pinpoint a particular LDS claim that many youth find not to be compelling, and this one things leads them into inactivity. I think they find the Church to be boring and irrelevant for a number of reasons, none of which hark back to the restoration itself. 

Let me unpack this a bit further and maybe you'll at least appreciate why I'm asking the questions . . . I get it, these kids won't have a Mark Hoffman/bombs-going-off-in-my-city experience to shape their thinking, but it seems they must have *

something* that discomforts them, or they'd be much stickier than they are.

I don't understand why you are so adamant with the assumption that there has to be some hot-button, red flag issue bothering youth and young adults, or they would continue to actively attend and participate in Church. In my experience, incompetency, being boring and uninterested themselves, lack of glowing-ember faith from their upbringing, etc. are sufficient to explain inactivity without assuming that there has just got to be some big historical or doctrinal issue. 

 

And I want you to tell me what it is.  But maybe that just isn't possible.

It isn't when you keep insisting that I'm holding out on you!  

PPS.  I'm half-expecting you to tell me I just don't get it.  And if you do, no worries.

I'm answering you as best I can. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all 50 states. See store for details.  

  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

That's a good way to put it. Yes, I attribute most LDS attrition to that. Well put!

I think it's been that way for most people I know who haven't stayed active. It's really not about doctrine but not having that spiritual experience that drives people. At a certain point you have to care enough to bother to want to find out. Without that Church is just a hassle.

Fundamentally I fear this indifference because the reasons we say Church is important tend to concern things fewer and fewer care about. Eternal families are met with "why wouldn't you just hang with who you want?" Sin is becoming an alien concept. There's being mean to others but sin as sin really makes less sense to many of each generation since I was young. Even finding out about what happens next is often met with a blaise what happens happens. If there is a God he's going to be nice and if there isn't who cares? Live for today.

It's worth noting that the rise of the Nones that pollsters have seen the last 20 years really is the rise of a group disconnected to religion, uncomfortable with religion with demands, and largely sympathetic to a vague spiritualism or nothing. (A significant number are also much more disengaged with community too)

While I favor the so-called inoculation approach the Church has thankfully taken up of late, I really don't think it's going to have a significant statistical effect. Fundamentally the Church doesn't have much to offer for those caught up in a kind of loose secularism of low expectations. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter for those to whom doctrine matters. In particular I think the Church really needs some clear revelations on homosexuality. It's not clear what to do there. But even if that were somehow resolved I'm not sure it'd mean more people would care. It'd be one less excuse but it used to be the very people who had doctrinal or historical questions cared enough to try and find out directly. That's simply happening less now IMO.

Edited February 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's been that way for most people I know who haven't stayed active. It's really not about doctrine but not having that spiritual experience that drives people. At a certain point you have to care enough to bother to want to find out. Without that Church is just a hassle.

Fundamentally I fear this indifference because the reasons we say Church is important tend to concern things fewer and fewer care about. Eternal families are met with "why wouldn't you just hang with who you want?" Sin is becoming an alien concept. There's being mean to others but sin as sin really makes less sense to many of each generation since I was young. Even finding out about what happens next is often met with a blaise what happens happens. If there is a God he's going to be nice and if there isn't who cares? Live for today.

It's worth noting that the rise of the Nones that pollsters have seen the last 20 years really is the rise of a group disconnected to religion, uncomfortable with religion with demands, and largely sympathetic to a vague spiritualism or nothing. (A significant number are also much more disengaged with community too)

While I favor the so-called inoculation approach the Church has thankfully taken up of late, I really don't think it's going to have a significant statistical effect. Fundamentally the Church doesn't have much to offer for those caught up in a kind of loose secularism of low expectations.

I wish I had more than one rep point to give, Clark. Very well put!

Apologetics and discussion is fun and engaging, but ultimately people usually go inactive or only semi-active for much different reasons than testimony concerns. 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I understand. You think that there is a disconnect between the fact that many of the youth in our stake will not be active in the LDS Church, and the fact that they didn't have any worries, skepticism, or concerns in an EFY class that you feel they must have (and just didn't want to get into in that time and setting).

It's very simple. They don't have concerns of this type. I have been a counselor in two different bishoprics and a bishop of two different wards in this stake. I have taught many of these kids in school. I have done many firesides and Q&A type things in this stake since 2007. Those few who are deep thinkers and enjoy discussing gospel topics, historical issues, anti-Mormon attacks, etc. have been discussing such things with me, and know that "I'm the guy" and where to find me. The vast super-majority of these youth don't have "throw 'em for a loop" concerns," and they also wouldn't have them if you cornered them and showed them sources critical of the Church. They aren't interested in these things, and aren't that interested in church and religion in general, to be honest (with notable exceptions). For all that, they are good kids, in their way.

 

 

I'm sure you do, Erik.  And yet, that's how it went down. And, I think the problem lies in the LDS families, that by and large aren't raising their kids to be interested thinkers about their history, religion, concerns, etc. --- so it's very much inside the LDS Church, and not just a product of the outside society. The whole problem is that many LDS families mirror non-LDS families.

 

 

Without a doubt in my mind. 

 

 

Not at all. Those who had questions and wanted to ask them asked them. Those who didn't ask anything weren't hiding questions they secretly had from me, their peers, and their leaders. The fact was that most kids didn't have questions of their own.

A few of the deep thinkers came up to me after and, apologetically, said that they didn't have any questions about concerns, issues, worries, etc. Their questions are from the perspective and assumption that "it's all true," and they wonder about certain scholarly things out of personal interest and curiousity (i.e., old-style LDS scholarship). But, they aren't racked with doubt and shaken to their core --- even if they didn't ask technical questions in that setting.  

I will have to look over your presentation again in case I missed it. But did you show the new narrative of the church, the one they didn't grow up learning about? 

And I agree, kids don't care at this point in their lives. Maybe when they live Mormonism for more years, attend the temple, are full tithe payers etc. Maybe after years of seeing the inner workings of the church, the members/leaders that have flaws and have to put some things on a shelf that they question or wonder about. Maybe then it might make a difference. 

How come there isn't something like this for the older crowd? When will that ever happen? 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Tacenda

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Well, yes--there must be a disconnect.  You're suggesting LDS attrition is largely the result of indifference and competing priority (which is just another way of saying LDS teaching and leadership fail to inspire passion, commitment).  And you blame families & the larger society for not inculcating kids to be "interested thinkers" (if that's even possible).  

Okay, maybe I've been asking the wrong questions.  Kindly permit me to try again.  What, among the various claims of the LDS Church, do today's LDS youth not find compelling?  Is it just the whole package, or can you narrow it down for us based on your experience? 

--Erik

PS.  Let me unpack this a bit further and maybe you'll at least appreciate why I'm asking the questions. 

A tall order to look back 30+ years (since I was eligible to attend an EFY conference, I never did) and pretend you can see things now as you did then.  I dropped out of my LDS high school seminary program after my junior year.  Hillcrest High in Midvale, UT, class of 1987.  It's a bigger deal than it sounds because back there & then--you got to count LDS seminary credit towards your Utah high school graduation.  And everybody knew seminary was a snooze--which meant the non-LDS had to work harder to graduate, they had to take a real class to make their number.  (A fact more than a little resented by the minority.)  But I chose to join their ranks and work harder.  If nothing else, that will give you a sense of how disillusioned I'd become. 

If I had to put my finger on a single issue that cemented my then growing discomfort with the LDS Church, its leadership, its pretense--it was Mark Hoffman's bombings and reading this covered between the Deseret News (which my parents subscribed to) and the Salt Lake Tribune (which was available in the debate room--yes, I was in the program).  And therein discovering the LDS-owned former simply couldn't be trusted.  The "worthy" tell lies when it suits their purpose.  After Hoffman, any interest in continuing with seminary, becoming an elder, serving a mission--dead & buried.  I returned to activity in the LDS Church after I moved to Seattle in 1988 (to establish residence & attend the University of Washington)--but it was for pragmatic reasons.  I didn't know anyone.  I needed a network to find a place to live.  And frankly, I didn't relate very well to people who drank alcohol (since I'd never done so myself and believed it was inherently bad).  I played along because really, I was scared of people who were different.  Probably like some of the kids in your room.  

I get it, these kids won't have a Mark Hoffman/bombs-going-off-in-my-city experience to shape their thinking, but it seems they must have *something* that discomforts them, or they'd be much stickier than they are.  And I want you to tell me what it is.  But maybe that just isn't possible. 

PPS.  I'm half-expecting you to tell me I just don't get it.  And if you do, no worries.

;0)

Utah stopped giving credit for classes in 1981.  The article was written in 2012 so I don't know what happened Utah wide after that, just that my son and daughter didn't receive credit in their schools.

[dberrie2000]

On 2/20/2017 at 0:47 PM, rongo said:

The claim that the internet has eroded testimonies of our youth is wrong, in my view. That would imply that they (overall, as a whole) think about and process critical claims, compare them to their base of knowledge, and decide to abandon ship. In my experience, the large numbers of youth and young people who go missing or become inactive is overwhelmingly due to lack of life resiliency and competency, and not related to testimony concerns at all. And where this occurs, I blame their families and upbringings.

Hi Rongo:

Who would we blame for the spirits who abandoned ship in the pre-existence? What did God miss in training them in life's "resiliency and competency"? The model you postulate may work for some instances--but not all, IMO.

The scriptures are replete with faithful parents who have children who choose an alternate lifestyles. I'm not sure blaming parents will account for all those defections.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Rongo:Who would we blame for the spirits who abandoned ship in the pre-existence?

You're talking about the Problem of Evil: Is God responsible for the devil; did He cause the devil, or did He create him? Did He allow him? Etc. The 1/3 who followed the devil are a similar theological situation. 

Joseph Smith's answer to that is that the natures of our intelligence aren't created; they are eternal with no beginning. 

What did God miss in training them in life's "resiliency and competency"?

We don't know much, really, about the War in Heaven, but this didn't have to do with a breakdown in God's training. They had agency, and the full consequences of exercising that agency.

The model you postulate may work for some instances--but not all, IMO.

Of course! There are notable exceptions. My point is that good, intentional, faithful parenting (and by faithful, I don't mean just attending church. I mean full commitment that is instilled in the children from a young age), gives one's children the best opportunity and "odds" of remaining faithful. As you note, there are people who do this whose children choose differently. Just like, as you point out, many of God's children did.

The scriptures are replete with faithful parents who have children who choose an alternate lifestyles. I'm not sure blaming parents will account for all those defections.

Not in all cases. But in many, I think.

My wife and I have talked about this a lot. She is the "pick of the litter" out of her family, with many siblings not making much of themselves in the Church or in the world. Blaming her parents is like shooting fish in a barrel --- it's an easy call. She has uncles who were outstanding LDS parents, but they weren't always. And it is the children who were raised when they were too busy with work, or not fully living the gospel, who have strayed. If one has access to full details like this, in many cases (not all) where children stray, there is some-to-a-lot of parent culpability --- where parents could have done a better job of hedging their bets with their children with full, joyful commitment. 

I include Lehi and Sariah in this (common poster children for good parents with some bad apples). I think it's interesting to look at their sons' names: Laman and Lemuel have desert Arab names, Nephi and Sam have Egyptian names, and the last two are named after patriarchs. The last two were born during the eight year sojourn in the wilderness, Nephi and Sam might point to Lehi's rise in trade with Egypt, and Laman and Lemuel with his roots. It's possible that Lehi's parenting and conversion to the gospel was most committed during his Egyptian trade years (definitely during the crucible of their eight year wandering). Interesting to think about, in any case.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Rongo:

Who would we blame for the spirits who abandoned ship in the pre-existence? What did God miss in training them in life's "resiliency and competency"? The model you postulate may work for some instances--but not all, IMO.

The scriptures are replete with faithful parents who have children who choose an alternate lifestyles. I'm not sure blaming parents will account for all those defections.

I don't really buy Rongo's premise either.  There are too many parents working very hard to keep their children interested and involved in the Mormon church.  In my own family, who are all excellent parents and devoted to teaching their kids about the church have had children walk away from the church.  

People blame society and lack of interest in spiritual things as the reason 72% of youth and many adults after a lifetime of commitment are leaving the church.  It is all bad parenting?  Really?

Society has definitely changed.  But not the way Rongo is painting it.  It is not because young people are no longer deep thinkers.  It is because so much information is available on the internet.  When young people google answers for their questions, they find a lot more to the story than they were told.  Miracles are not always a miracle.  Prophets are not always prophets.  The first vision is not as clean as was told to them.  Yada Yada Yada.

What is really happening is that people are looking more objectively at religion.  They are weighing the claims of religion as being true.  They are not automatically accepting the beliefs of their parents.  And quite frankly, they are finding different answers than a generation ago.  The very foundation of what made religion a necessity is no longer just assumed as being true. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't really buy Rongo's premise either.  There are too many parents working very hard to keep their children interested and involved in the Mormon church.  In my own family, who are all excellent parents and devoted to teaching their kids about the church have had children walk away from the church.  

People blame society and lack of interest in spiritual things as the reason 72% of youth and many adults after a lifetime of commitment are leaving the church.  It is all bad parenting?  Really?

Society has definitely changed.  But not the way Rongo is painting it.  It is not because young people are no longer deep thinkers.  It is because so much information is available on the internet.  When young people google answers for their questions, they find a lot more to the story than they were told.  Miracles are not always a miracle.  Prophets are not always prophets.  The first vision is not as clean as was told to them.  Yada Yada Yada.

What is really happening is that people are looking more objectively at religion.  They are weighing the claims of religion as being true.  They are not automatically accepting the beliefs of their parents.  And quite frankly, they are finding different answers than a generation ago.  The very foundation of what made religion a necessity is no longer just assumed as being true. 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think that, rather than looking at religion more objectively that people are looking at it more skeptically.

In other words, I think people are starting to lead with their doubts rather than starting at a neutral place. 

Also, because millennials are proven to be more narcissistic and entitled than previous generations, I think they are coming at religion from the point of view of "what do I agree with, what serves my desires best" rather than "what is true."

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

My wife and I have talked about this a lot. She is the "pick of the litter" out of her family, with many siblings not making much of themselves in the Church or in the world. Blaming her parents is like shooting fish in a barrel --- it's an easy call. She has uncles who were outstanding LDS parents, but they weren't always. And it is the children who were raised when they were too busy with work, or not fully living the gospel, who have strayed. If one has access to full details like this, in many cases (not all) where children stray, there is some-to-a-lot of parent culpability --- where parents could have done a better job of hedging their bets with their children with full, joyful commitment. 

You are mistaken in most but not all cases. This judgement/attitude is very harmful to those faithful parents whose children have strayed. I hope you don't express this from the pulpit and send mothers into the hall crying. (My mother in law told me a story of a very faithful family who were struggling with a child leaving the church. A stake conference speaker bluntly stated, it was the parents fault if their children stray. This poor struggling mother left the meeting in tears.)

Most parents of adult children I know, have inactive children. These are faithful, dedicated members who are strong members.

In a public meeting with teenagers, unless the questions were anonymous and written down, there is no way for you to know what questions these kids have. There is a level of narcissism in the church and some kids are very good at telling their leaders what they want to hear. We praise those who speak well and outwardly participate. Most teenagers would never publicaly ask a question from a less than faithful perspective. It would be social suicide in the Mormon world.

The teachers in my ward of the 14-15 SS class asked for anonymous, written questions. They received questions on the seer stone in hat, race and the Priesthood, where dinosaurs fit into the creation, the new policy and many others. They were informed and thinking about issues. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

I wish I had more than one rep point to give, Clark. Very well put!

Apologetics and discussion is fun and engaging, but ultimately people usually go inactive or only semi-active for much different reasons than testimony concerns. 

I don't know, you may want to check out this research I saw on Bill Reel's podcast site. http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/02/premium-who-is-the-doubter/

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisFactorsmMD.pdf

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't really buy Rongo's premise either.  There are too many parents working very hard to keep their children interested and involved in the Mormon church.  In my own family, who are all excellent parents and devoted to teaching their kids about the church have had children walk away from the church.  

Hi California:

To tell a rather humorous story--when I was in the Bishopric--we had a request from a number of parents which requested the stake have someone to come and address them, as a group, as they had children which they were unable to reach--and wanted some help and comfort in their search for answers as to how to deal with their challenge.

The stake obliged--and sent us someone from Utah(and we being in the deep south) which came and addressed us about raising children. Now--for the humor(irony)--he was a man with 11 children--and he expounded on how they all finished noble missions around the world--all were college grads--were all married for time and eternity, and attended the temple regularly, and all served as Stake presidents, Bishops, Relief Society presidents, etc.

Not only did that not help the ones who came for some comfort--it made them feel worse.

Anyone who puts the blame on parents for their children's deviance, as a blanket cause--is not in touch with reality, IMO. And anyone who believes their children are wonderful due to their great preparation alone, is deceived. There are children who had neglectful parents who turn out quite well--maybe even among some of the best.

I grew up with an Army Major--who was an agnostic--and that was a hard line to cross into the gospel. We talked with our fists, and lived by the law of survival. It was a dysfunctional family.

 

 

 

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

Utah stopped giving credit for classes in 1981.  The article was written in 2012 so I don't know what happened Utah wide after that, just that my son and daughter didn't receive credit in their schools.

And the witness stands - impeached!  Heh, heh. 

;0)

I can assure you I took 7 real classes my senior year (class of '87), just like the non-LDS students were required to do (they weren't allowed to leave early, come late or any other offset).  In previous years I had taken 6 real classes + 1 LDS seminary snooze.  The seminary building was right across the parking lot and seminary classes were throughout the day, aligned with the rest of the school class times.  So whatever law you're referring to in 1981--it certainly had no practical impact on fairness/level of effort to graduate between LDS and the non-LDS minority.  And I can tell you first hand--the non LDS students knew it and resented it. 

--Erik

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And the witness stands - impeached!  Heh, heh. 

;0)

I can assure you I took 7 real classes my senior year (class of '87), just like the non-LDS students were required to do (they weren't allowed to leave early, come late or any other offset).  In previous years I had taken 6 real classes + 1 LDS seminary snooze.  The seminary building was right across the parking lot and seminary classes were throughout the day, aligned with the rest of the school class times.  So whatever law you're referring to in 1981--it certainly had no practical impact on fairness/level of effort to graduate between LDS and the non-LDS minority.  And I can tell you first hand--the non LDS students knew it and resented it. 

--Erik

I don't doubt you took these classes. I'm just saying that no students, at that time, "got to count LDS seminary credit towards your Utah high school graduation." (Not meaning to emphasize your quote, just can't get rid of the bold.)

There are others, like the article talks about,  who went to released time for other things and didn't get credit.  If your friends resented seminary released time then they should have resented it for the others things as well,  or better yet,  do one of those things for which released time was approved for.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Rain

[Rain]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

You're talking about the Problem of Evil: Is God responsible for the devil; did He cause the devil, or did He create him? Did He allow him? Etc. The 1/3 who followed the devil are a similar theological situation. 

Joseph Smith's answer to that is that the natures of our intelligence aren't created; they are eternal with no beginning. 

 

 

We don't know much, really, about the War in Heaven, but this didn't have to do with a breakdown in God's training. They had agency, and the full consequences of exercising that agency.

 

 

Of course! There are notable exceptions. My point is that good, intentional, faithful parenting (and by faithful, I don't mean just attending church. I mean full commitment that is instilled in the children from a young age), gives one's children the best opportunity and "odds" of remaining faithful. As you note, there are people who do this whose children choose differently. Just like, as you point out, many of God's children did.

 

 

Not in all cases. But in many, I think.

My wife and I have talked about this a lot. She is the "pick of the litter" out of her family, with many siblings not making much of themselves in the Church or in the world. Blaming her parents is like shooting fish in a barrel --- it's an easy call. She has uncles who were outstanding LDS parents, but they weren't always. And it is the children who were raised when they were too busy with work, or not fully living the gospel, who have strayed. If one has access to full details like this, in many cases (not all) where children stray, there is some-to-a-lot of parent culpability --- where parents could have done a better job of hedging their bets with their children with full, joyful commitment. 

I include Lehi and Sariah in this (common poster children for good parents with some bad apples). I think it's interesting to look at their sons' names: Laman and Lemuel have desert Arab names, Nephi and Sam have Egyptian names, and the last two are named after patriarchs. The last two were born during the eight year sojourn in the wilderness, Nephi and Sam might point to Lehi's rise in trade with Egypt, and Laman and Lemuel with his roots. It's possible that Lehi's parenting and conversion to the gospel was most committed during his Egyptian trade years (definitely during the crucible of their eight year wandering). Interesting to think about, in any case.

I can see that you recognize that faithful parents sometimes have children who stray. I also agree with you that parents who are not teaching children to be faithful, by word and example, have some blame on their shoulders as the scriptures talk about (though we can still show compassion for them). 

The problem comes when you say the blame lays on parents without showing recognition that some children fall away despite having faithful parents or do not show that before someone takes issue with what you say. 

It would be helpful if you stated from the start that you are not talking about faithful parents. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Rain

[california boy]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think that, rather than looking at religion more objectively that people are looking at it more skeptically.

In other words, I think people are starting to lead with their doubts rather than starting at a neutral place. 

Also, because millennials are proven to be more narcissistic and entitled than previous generations, I think they are coming at religion from the point of view of "what do I agree with, what serves my desires best" rather than "what is true."

I completely agree that people are more skeptical about religion, and for good reasons.  I don't agree that millennials are more narcissistic and entitled.  I certainly know a lot of millennials that don't fit that broad brush branding.  I do think they are more likely to question what is being told to them.  They have found out that too much of what they have been told is simply not true.  Just because someone is an adult does not mean they should be believed. So I think they are following "what is true" for them.  And they base that truth on different things than you might.  They trust Google more than they trust what religion is telling them.  One gives them scientific fact, backed by real data.  The other gives them things that are not verifiable by facts, only feelings.

[Jeanne]

How does one start at a neutral place?