New Youth Guide

[pogi]

I know this is somewhat being discussed in the conference thread, but I feel like it is worthy of a dedicated thread. 

I have briefly reviewed some of the guide and am extremely pleased with the approach.  The word "modesty" is not even found in the guide that I could find in a word search.   In terms of dress and grooming, the following advice is given:

Quote

Invitations
Treat your body—and others’ bodies—with respect. As you make decisions about your clothing, hairstyle, and appearance, ask yourself, “Am I honoring my body as a sacred gift from God?” Heavenly Father wants us to see each other for who we really are: not just physical bodies but His beloved children with a divine destiny. Avoid styles that emphasize or draw inappropriate attention to your physical body instead of who you are as a child of God with an eternal future. Let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices. Seek counsel from your parents.

Quote

Questions and answers
What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.

This is SO much better.  It puts it in the individuals judgment and allows for cultural differences without hard objective lines.  Are the days of Natzi dress-code leaders at young women's camp over?  I hope this is the beginning of the end. 

I was also extremely pleased to see this:

Quote

Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan to create happy marriages and eternal families. These feelings are not sinful—they are sacred.

What are your thoughts and feelings after reading the new guidelines.  What do you like etc.?

 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know this is somewhat being discussed in the conference thread, but I feel like it is worthy of a dedicated thread. 

I have briefly reviewed some of the guide and am extremely pleased with the approach.  The word "modesty" is not even found in the guide that I could find in a word search.   In terms of dress and grooming, the following advice is given:

This is SO much better.  It puts it in the individuals judgment and allows for cultural differences without hard objective lines.  Are the days of Natzi dress-code leaders at young women's camp over?  I hope this is the beginning of the end. 

I was also extremely pleased to see this:

What are your thoughts and feelings after reading the new guidelines.  What do you like etc.?

 

Maybe they can add some advice for those who are innappropriately drawn to another's physical body due to clothing choices, unless that's covered in "Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan..."

[rpn]

My take is that they need an index so that anyone can find the section that applies to what they are wondering about.   Some things are mentioned more than once, some don't use the words that a youth might be looking for.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Maybe they can add some advice for those who are innappropriately drawn to another's physical body due to clothing choices, unless that's covered in "Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan..."

How about “work on not being inappropriately aroused by others”?

[LoudmouthMormon]

I'll stick with my same stuff I've thought for decades:

Advice 1: Dress for the type of attention you want.  You may or may not get it, but you can influence it.

Advice 2: Treat people like how God wants you to treat them, regardless of how it might look like they want to be treated.  

 

I guess I'll go down in history as the only human on earth who thought both bits of advice are true/useful/applicable/worthy, and they are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.

Edited October 6, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[blackstrap]

There is that tendency of youth to say , ( well, so-an-so is wearing/doing it so why can't I ?  There is no specific rule against ! ) 

I suppose the new stuff is more in line with " we teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves " We humans are so good at self control. Look how well we adhere to the speed regs. ( take note I-15 users ! ) 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

My take is that they need an index so that anyone can find the section that applies to what they are wondering about.   Some things are mentioned more than once, some don't use the words that a youth might be looking for.

It has an index like that.  It could use a few more terms, but there are a number of good ones there.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

How about “work on not being inappropriately aroused by others”?

How about being appropriately aroused by others? Safe space for all!

Edited October 6, 2022 by CV75

[pogi]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Maybe they can add some advice for those who are innappropriately drawn to another's physical body due to clothing choices, unless that's covered in "Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan..."

I don’t think that is a bad idea.  When it comes to arousal, I think there is very little that one can do to control what arouses them.  Youth have little to no say.  I think those feelings need not be shamed and should be taught that they are natural, and as the guide says “important”.  I agree that it would be helpful to have some guidance on how to address them when they do arise.   It would be helpful to teach youth that while the feelings are natural and normal, what you do with them when they arise is what matters most to keep a healthy/natural attraction from evolving into an unhealthy lust.

This type of teaching would place more responsibility on the young men and makes them less codependent on the young women for maintaining their own spirituality.  

Edited October 6, 2022 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

I think this is a very positive move. Focusing on teaching principles versus creating numerous rules seems like a more adult approach.

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this is a very positive move. Focusing on teaching principles versus creating numerous rules seems like a more adult approach.

Agreed. I remember my own now adult children poo-pooing the old version because they said it was just another list of rules. What teenager wants more rules?

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Agreed. I remember my own now adult children poo-pooing the old version because they said it was just another list of rules. What teenager wants more rules?

What adult wants more rules?  Hopefully this will help adults as well.

[LoudmouthMormon]

The thing is a pendulum.  Especially when dealing with argumentative teenagers with brains growing in maturity and ability to argue.

Various Teens: "This is just a list of vague undefinable fluff!  I need to know who I can kiss, and where and how I can kiss them!  Can I get a tattoo or can't I?" 

Various Teens, literally ten seconds later: "Endless lists of rules are just stupid.  There's no way they can be complete enough to cover every situation. And context is important!"

[MrShorty]

I mostly like it. I like the "here are principles, now make your best decision" approach.

But, where's the fun in blanket approval. Some things that concern me:

1) In a section on sexuality, it says, "In your choices...avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself." If I have a solid understanding of what the difference is between "normal sexual emotions" and "lustful emotions," then this probably isn't a problem. For myself in my youth, lust and sexual desire were essentially synonymous, so this statement would have led to the same kinds of self-loathing that I experienced under the old '80/'90s era version. A lot will depend on how well we as parents and teachers and the church as a whole help youth distinguish between normal sexual desires and lust. My own negative experiences do not give me much hope that we as a church are going to be very good at this.

2) We haven't officially disavowed Pres. Hinckley et al's call for one ear piercing, no other piercings, and no tattoos. A lot of the success in letting youth decide these things for themselves will depend on what we do with those past teachings. I fear that, where the new guide doesn't come down one way or the other, we will still hold up the old teaching as better rather than truly embrace the opportunity for personal choice.

3) I have seen a few places (mostly less than orthodox spaces on the internet) where concern has been expressed over the phrase "Seek answers...from...faithful parents" [emphasis mine] in the "Is it wrong to have questions..." Q&A section of the Truth will Make Your free section. So many parents in faith crisis or who have left the church or were never members or who are more nuanced in their belief are feeling slighted because they see the church trying to discourage youth from seeking their advice when it comes to questions about the church.

When all is said and done, I like the new approach -- if we can truly embrace it. Sometimes I think we are so concerned that, if we give our youth too much freedom, they will end up choosing things we don't want them to choose, that we don't actually let them make their own choices. Implementation going forward will determine how well we succeed in our new approach.

 

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So many parents in faith crisis or who have left the church or were never members or who are more nuanced in their belief are feeling slighted because they see the church trying to discourage youth from seeking their advice when it comes to questions about the church.

So if you see the phrase "seek advice from qualified medical professionals" or plumbers or lawyers or whatever, should someone feel slighted?  Should you ask an alcoholics advice about drinking?  How about asking someone without a testimony of the Book of Mormon how to gain one?

Edited October 6, 2022 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

3) I have seen a few places (mostly less than orthodox spaces on the internet) where concern has been expressed over the phrase "Seek answers...from...faithful parents" [emphasis mine] in the "Is it wrong to have questions..." Q&A section of the Truth will Make Your free section. So many parents in faith crisis or who have left the church or were never members or who are more nuanced in their belief are feeling slighted because they see the church trying to discourage youth from seeking their advice when it comes to questions about the church.

 

That's a hard one.  I can see why some people would feel slighted.  Does the booklet make it clear that it's speaking only about seeking answers to doctrinal questions and issues? 

I don't think the church would ever try to imply that kids should not seek answers and guidance from their parents unless their parents are active members (though without making that specific point I'm sure some would happily interpret the book to be saying just that).

[MrShorty]

@ksfisher, I'm not sure the comparison to professional services is quite the same as what it is to be a parent. FWIW, professional service people probably should not feel slighted if they do not have the proper credentials (certifications, education, or whatever pertains to a given occupation). However, someone who is properly trained and credentialed who gets inaccurate reviews on Yelp might have good cause for feeling slighted.

Re: the Book of Mormon example -- what if you want to know about getting a testimony of the BoM. Your mom has long been a stalwart member of the church with a solid testimony of the BoM, but your dad, in 20+ years of knowing and loving your mom and supporting your participation in the church, has never joined himself, and one of the reasons is because he never got a testimony of the BoM. Are we saying that this man's child should not ask Dad about his experience (or lack of experience) trying to get a testimony? Said child should only talk to Mom about her faithful experience, because she is the faithful parent?

I understand the church's concern. So much of the challenge in wrestling with difficult church issues is choosing good sources. I think the concern being expressed is that the church seems to be asking the child not to trust one (or both) parents if the child does not judge them to be "faithful" members of the church. I think it is troubling if the church is really trying to insert itself between a parent and a child.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I mostly like it. I like the "here are principles, now make your best decision" approach.

But, where's the fun in blanket approval. Some things that concern me:

1) In a section on sexuality, it says, "In your choices...avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself." If I have a solid understanding of what the difference is between "normal sexual emotions" and "lustful emotions," then this probably isn't a problem. For myself in my youth, lust and sexual desire were essentially synonymous, so this statement would have led to the same kinds of self-loathing that I experienced under the old '80/'90s era version. A lot will depend on how well we as parents and teachers and the church as a whole help youth distinguish between normal sexual desires and lust. My own negative experiences do not give me much hope that we as a church are going to be very good at this.

2) We haven't officially disavowed Pres. Hinckley et al's call for one ear piercing, no other piercings, and no tattoos. A lot of the success in letting youth decide these things for themselves will depend on what we do with those past teachings. I fear that, where the new guide doesn't come down one way or the other, we will still hold up the old teaching as better rather than truly embrace the opportunity for personal choice.

3) I have seen a few places (mostly less than orthodox spaces on the internet) where concern has been expressed over the phrase "Seek answers...from...faithful parents" [emphasis mine] in the "Is it wrong to have questions..." Q&A section of the Truth will Make Your free section. So many parents in faith crisis or who have left the church or were never members or who are more nuanced in their belief are feeling slighted because they see the church trying to discourage youth from seeking their advice when it comes to questions about the church.

When all is said and done, I like the new approach -- if we can truly embrace it. Sometimes I think we are so concerned that, if we give our youth too much freedom, they will end up choosing things we don't want them to choose, that we don't actually let them make their own choices. Implementation going forward will determine how well we succeed in our new approach.

 

I had that concern with my children, more with some than others.  One of my friends told me something like "agency is great till you become a parent!".  

What I found though is overall when I have taught them how to make the choices and let them make mistakes they have become stronger.  When I told them what to do they rebelled and became weaker.  And this wasn't just about religious things.  So at sometime you just need to trust the process.

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@ksfisher, I'm not sure the comparison to professional services is quite the same as what it is to be a parent. FWIW, professional service people probably should not feel slighted if they do not have the proper credentials (certifications, education, or whatever pertains to a given occupation). However, someone who is properly trained and credentialed who gets inaccurate reviews on Yelp might have good cause for feeling slighted.

Re: the Book of Mormon example -- what if you want to know about getting a testimony of the BoM. Your mom has long been a stalwart member of the church with a solid testimony of the BoM, but your dad, in 20+ years of knowing and loving your mom and supporting your participation in the church, has never joined himself, and one of the reasons is because he never got a testimony of the BoM. Are we saying that this man's child should not ask Dad about his experience (or lack of experience) trying to get a testimony? Said child should only talk to Mom about her faithful experience, because she is the faithful parent?

No.  It says nothing about "only" or "don't ask unfaithful parents". 

The problem comes with reading "only" and "don't ask" into it. That's understandable because we have talks and conversations about looking to the prophet and not the internet etc.  The beauty of the new FSY is that it just encourages faithful resources instead

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I understand the church's concern. So much of the challenge in wrestling with difficult church issues is choosing good sources. I think the concern being expressed is that the church seems to be asking the child not to trust one (or both) parents if the child does not judge them to be "faithful" members of the church. I think it is troubling if the church is really trying to insert itself between a parent and a child.

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

What adult wants more rules?  Hopefully this will help adults as well.

I haven’t touched FSOY stuff since I was a youth and have no intention of doing so now. If they put out a “For the Strength of the Messed Up Singles who can’t GET IT TOGETHER” I will consider perusing it.

[MrShorty]

@RainI agree that some of this could be reading more into it than is intended. To some, the use of the word "faithful" here seems carefully chosen, because this modifier is not present in other places where the new youth guide suggests seeking advice from parents. It's one of those cases where, if the church were more open to feedback on these official publications, or more willing to offer clarifications after publication, it would be interesting to see if they would echo your sentiment that people are reading too much into the choice of word here or not. If you are correct, then it doesn't seem like it would take very much to make the necessary changes to the publication or issue a clarification.

[Rain]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I haven’t touched FSOY stuff since I was a youth and have no intention of doing so now. If they put out a “For the Strength of the Messed Up Singles who can’t GET IT TOGETHER” I will consider perusing it.

What I meant is that it should help adults who have children, who teach children and who refer back to the it for guidance.  I would expect that slowly it should spread to adults and how adults are taught as well.  Like I mentioned in the other thread we are going away from the rules of how to keep the Sabbath holy and guidance how to learn from the spirit of keeping it holy instead, so I would hope that more and more this is how the church is leaning with adults and youth. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Rain

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@RainI agree that some of this could be reading more into it than is intended. To some, the use of the word "faithful" here seems carefully chosen, because this modifier is not present in other places where the new youth guide suggests seeking advice from parents. It's one of those cases where, if the church were more open to feedback on these official publications, or more willing to offer clarifications after publication, it would be interesting to see if they would echo your sentiment that people are reading too much into the choice of word here or not. If you are correct, then it doesn't seem like it would take very much to make the necessary changes to the publication or issue a clarification.

I think they must be open to feedback or the changes wouldn't have been made already.  Don't get me wrong. Sometimes the wheel turns very slowly.  In the last 24 hours I've expressed some frustration to others of 2 different things involving women.  By themselves they don't mean much.  It's just new things put out that go with the traditional pattern.  So I think it is good to give feedback, but important to recognize things may have changed in a good way without assuming things are still the old ways. 

Part of it comes with what my husband and I learned about "content communication" from John Lund.  It's about taking hints that aren't there.  Is it possible the church is hinting not to talk with an unfaithful parent?  Yes!  But with the other changes in the book and the lack of anything about it I'm going to assume that the booklet means what it says and not take a possible hint.   

 

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I mostly like it. I like the "here are principles, now make your best decision" approach.

But, where's the fun in blanket approval. Some things that concern me:

1) In a section on sexuality, it says, "In your choices...avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself." If I have a solid understanding of what the difference is between "normal sexual emotions" and "lustful emotions," then this probably isn't a problem. For myself in my youth, lust and sexual desire were essentially synonymous, so this statement would have led to the same kinds of self-loathing that I experienced under the old '80/'90s era version. A lot will depend on how well we as parents and teachers and the church as a whole help youth distinguish between normal sexual desires and lust. My own negative experiences do not give me much hope that we as a church are going to be very good at this.

I was hoping that within the context of "sexual desire" is sacred v avoid lustful thoughts would give at least more differentiation than what's usually been given to this topic to help at least have people question whether they're really synonymous. After all we're not usually told to avoid sacred things. But I agree, it'll likely come down to us to at least help youth differentiate this. I'm personally hopeful, at least to some degree that we can or will start to. There's a lot of nudges in that direction that I've seen. So I'm hopeful, though realistic that there will likely still be pockets of people who struggle with finding and teaching a healthier sexual outlook.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

2) We haven't officially disavowed Pres. Hinckley et al's call for one ear piercing, no other piercings, and no tattoos. A lot of the success in letting youth decide these things for themselves will depend on what we do with those past teachings. I fear that, where the new guide doesn't come down one way or the other, we will still hold up the old teaching as better rather than truly embrace the opportunity for personal choice.

I picture it as likely going both ways. People who have an affinity to rigidity and holding onto expectations from 20, 40, or 50 years ago will likely not change. I will not be surprised in the least if some in my stake will take these statements and then use them to validate their views that tats, piercings, etc are things that don't "honor one's body." They're the sort who have a tendency to hold onto cultural markers for far longer than they should. Change is hard, particularly for those who see no need for change. But there will be others, particularly in the younger generation who just won't since their peer culture has decidedly shifted from really knocking either as weird or extreme. 

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

3) I have seen a few places (mostly less than orthodox spaces on the internet) where concern has been expressed over the phrase "Seek answers...from...faithful parents" [emphasis mine] in the "Is it wrong to have questions..." Q&A section of the Truth will Make Your free section. So many parents in faith crisis or who have left the church or were never members or who are more nuanced in their belief are feeling slighted because they see the church trying to discourage youth from seeking their advice when it comes to questions about the church.

When all is said and done, I like the new approach -- if we can truly embrace it. Sometimes I think we are so concerned that, if we give our youth too much freedom, they will end up choosing things we don't want them to choose, that we don't actually let them make their own choices. Implementation going forward will determine how well we succeed in our new approach.

 

This was a statement that stood out to me, though not immediately for the "faith parents part" (I was scan reading). For me it was that it mentioned just LDS sources. I am concerned that it could lead some to assume the shouldn't look at other forms of sources. But at the same time I can also see a point to it. I've noticed that LDS sources and supports are some of the first to go when questioning things. Or at least be neglected. Not all the time, of course, but often enough that I can imagine they've seen and heard similar. So I could see it as trying to encourage them to answer questions without losing track of more faith-oriented sources as well.  I probably would have worded it differently, though. 

 

With luv,

BD