She Said:
I grew up a PK (preacher's kid) which is similar to being the child of a Mormon Bishop, but for your whole life. I learned early what it was like to hang around the church for hours. Both Dr. B. and I love church meetings, and in our early years we thought nothing of going to two wards' full 3-hour schedule of meetings. But these days, the long hours are starting to wear on me. Am I getting a little ADHD in my old age? Or is it that I've heard it all before, and there is nothing new under the sun?
For many years rumors have circulated that church meetings were to be pared down to 2 hours. Usually the rumors have it that Sunday School would be the meeting to go, with members expected to provide scripture study in the home. I don't think these rumors will ever come to fruition, but I want to explore whether it would be a good thing to cut down on our Sunday services.
In today's fast-paced world, 2 hours is a long time to sit still and listen to a lecture-type format. It is especially difficult for families with children. Small children might be better served with a shorter, more varied program during the Primary time. A 30-minute classroom lesson, 15-20 minutes of singing, and a 5 or 10 minute Sharing Time message sounds like a perfect schedule for ages 3 to 11. This would also be less of a burden on all of the many members that it takes to keep a Primary fully staffed.
Adults might appreciate the format, too. One thing I miss about my Protestant upbringing was the coffee hour that followed our meetings. While I wouldn't necessarily suggest something similar for Mormons, I think that if our meetings were shorter, we might be chipper enough to socialize for a while afterwards, instead of rushing everyone home. For me, a big part of going to church is the fellowship, and even with our 3-hour blocks, we don't experience much of that, unless we're skipping our classes.
The biggest disadvantage I see to cutting out Sunday School would be less gospel study. But as it stands now, I think our Sunday School time is ineffective and boring. Any scriptural learning that takes place could easily be replaced by more emphasis in Sacrament Meetings on centering talks around scriptural topics, and a few additions to PH/RS. Perhaps special manuals could be prepared to assist families in setting up a Sunday School hour in their home. Many families would do a fine job at this, although I realize that for some it might take too much effort and fall by the wayside. I'd love to see small group scripture study classes during the week for those who are interested in coming together for discussion.
Do you see any other disadvantages to cutting our Sunday services by an hour?
He Said:
From time to time I hear that the Church is considering doing away with Sunday School so we as parents can better teach our kids the gospel. If it is anything like FHE that means we may or may not have more time for sleeping since FHE is a hit and miss proposition at my home. I think it will be sporadic for parents to actually use a manual and teach their kids as BiV suggests. I would probably try it out for a year or two or even five but it would probably be a very uneven treatment for my various kids. Over the course of several years the manual would get boring. I guess they could throw in the Preach My Gospel or some other manual to liven it up but for all intents and purposes they would need more than one manual because parents and kids would get bored. I suspect they would have us use the priesthood manuals which is way over kids heads just to save on correlation.
My oldest three children born during my youth experienced more concentrated gospel study which included three attempts at reading the Book of Mormon with one successful completion in an eighteen year period. I think a Sunday School manual might work for one or two cycles but for my eight children there would be gaps in their religious education. At least in a formal Sunday School class there is a week after week attempt to get them to engage with the gospel. Sometimes even when they are being obtuse the gospel seems to sink in. Between primary or young men or young women and sunday school with seminary my children have learned the gospel. I personally would hate to see it go for their sakes.
In my case the gospel doctrine class is a big snooze. I have to shut my mouth to keep from monopolizing the class. Nine times out of ten I know more than the teacher who many times preaches false doctrine or the gospel according to them. I have read most of the statements of the general authorities and can quote them til I'm blue in the face. Students and the teachers don't appreciate a know it all. I wish there were a beginner, intermediate, and advanced gospel doctrine class since one class doesn't fit all. I humble myself by sitting through these classes week after week. I always remember J. Rebuen Clark Jr. on his death bed saying he wants to remain faithful. To me getting through a gospel doctrine class for the fifth cycle is enduring to the end.
An interesting thing about the consolidated three hour block was it was supposed to free people up to do more Christian acts and do more gospel related things. However the only thing I noticed was that home teaching shifted in to the slot. Prior to that it was done mostly on week nights. Eventually it became an expectation that on the last Sunday of the month home teachers would want to come over. I resent my home teachers coming over on Sunday because it cuts in to my rest time and my occasional hymn singing. Every few months I like to sing out of pitch from the hymnbook and subject any child I don't see singing to having to sing with me.
I have visited a lot of LDS over the years and most of them seem to enjoy Sunday as a time for socializing with members. A few of the more stalwart invited us over for dinner a few times a year. Youth like to go to each others houses and hang out and end up eating with them occasionally so there is a lot of interaction during the primary and mutual years. In the last ten years I probably remember having a whole family over to our house for dinner or parties less than five or six times a year that leaves forty-five weeks for resting, remember on the seventh day even the Lord rested.
I personally like the earliest morning block so it can free me up to either do genealogy when I am in a quasi-righteous mood or to watch the Big Love, the Chicago Cubs game or the World Series of Poker when I am in a who cares mood. If there were a two hour block I might do the same amount of genealogy which runs in cycles. When my wife is in to it I am more gungho when she isn't I have a hard time now that my eyesight is diminishing. It is a back breaking tedious process to crank a microfilm reel or to even search on Ancestry or Family Search.
Mostly I just spend the time sleeping around eating lunch/dinner so I can be rejuvenated for the coming work week. Unfortunately I spend a lot of time taking my eight children to different firesides, bishop youth discussions or over to friends homes. The latter I try to not do and make the other kids in the ward come to our house. Once in a blue moon my son and I go home teaching to one of the three families. An extra hour means we could go earlier home teaching since we could get our nap in sooner or on the other three weeks I could watch more gospel movies or the Big Love which is tangentially LDS related. Don't worry, I change the channel if I think there is any sex happening to keep the Sabbath Day holy.
Take the Poll:
Showing posts with label youth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label youth. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
She Said: Giving the P+()rn Talk to the Young Men
Last night the Aaronic priesthood youth were asked to attend a fireside at our ward building. Due to some confusion as to whether it was supposed to be a family or a priesthood-only activity (and my general reluctance to change back in to my dress clothes), Dr. B. took our 14-year-old son to the fireside. I can only thank my lucky stars that I was not in attendance.
Apparently the activity WAS directed toward families, but with an emphasis on the YM. In fact, two of the boys who were not there at the appointed time received phone calls from the Bishop telling them to come down, he was waiting for them, and that the meeting would not start without them. Since I was not there, I will let Dr. B. elaborate on what was said, but I heard enough when they returned home to be extremely concerned about what is being taught to our youth in the name of morality.
The one sound bite which really got my goat, and toward which I would like to direct this blog post was that the audience was told that "anything which causes someone to become aroused is P+()rn." When I heard that this was being said, I sat my husband and my son down as calmly as was then possible and explained my disagreement with this statement. I said that a young man can very easily become aroused. He can become aroused by looking at anything from a girl's big toe to, I don't know, a fence post. He should not feel ashamed of this very natural response.
It is perhaps not fair for me to criticize this particular activity, since I was not there to judge the tenor of the event. But I have attended many such meetings in the Church and I am displeased with the outcome of our interpretation of chastity. Doctrinally, I think that the Mormon Church has a healthy outlook on $exual intimacy within marriage. The Church Handbook of Instructions states:
Another good explanation of the doctrine comes from a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland called Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments. This talk explains that:
Elder Holland's talk gives sobering but important reasons why the Church stresses the importance of reserving $exual intimacy for marriage. But for some reason, the filtered-down version of chastity that our youth is getting is repressive and restrictive. Bishop and youth leaders: I DO NOT want my son, (or any of my daughters) being taught that the physical expression of love is bad. I don't want them feeling guilty about the natural functions of their bodies. I don't want them to shy away from the nudity in classical art. I don't want $ex to be something they are afraid of. I think great care needs to be taken, in explaining that there can be dangers in p+()rnography or indiscriminate $ex, that these messages are not given inadvertently.
I'm not saying that our youth don't need education, morals, laws, or commandments. But for every caution about p+()rn, for every restraint placed on our exhuberant youth, I would like to see some joyous affirmation of the life-giving powers we hold within our bodies. We are in dire need of some celebration of our hormone-driven physical beings. Let's marvel at the beauty of the human form. Let's acknowledge the excitement and the wonder of arousal.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that the exact statement that was made in the above-referenced fireside was:
Apparently the activity WAS directed toward families, but with an emphasis on the YM. In fact, two of the boys who were not there at the appointed time received phone calls from the Bishop telling them to come down, he was waiting for them, and that the meeting would not start without them. Since I was not there, I will let Dr. B. elaborate on what was said, but I heard enough when they returned home to be extremely concerned about what is being taught to our youth in the name of morality.
The one sound bite which really got my goat, and toward which I would like to direct this blog post was that the audience was told that "anything which causes someone to become aroused is P+()rn." When I heard that this was being said, I sat my husband and my son down as calmly as was then possible and explained my disagreement with this statement. I said that a young man can very easily become aroused. He can become aroused by looking at anything from a girl's big toe to, I don't know, a fence post. He should not feel ashamed of this very natural response.
It is perhaps not fair for me to criticize this particular activity, since I was not there to judge the tenor of the event. But I have attended many such meetings in the Church and I am displeased with the outcome of our interpretation of chastity. Doctrinally, I think that the Mormon Church has a healthy outlook on $exual intimacy within marriage. The Church Handbook of Instructions states:
"...$exual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." ("Church Policies," section 18 of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [1998], 156).
Another good explanation of the doctrine comes from a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland called Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments. This talk explains that:
...such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess--their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union, the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of--indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of--that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise.
Elder Holland's talk gives sobering but important reasons why the Church stresses the importance of reserving $exual intimacy for marriage. But for some reason, the filtered-down version of chastity that our youth is getting is repressive and restrictive. Bishop and youth leaders: I DO NOT want my son, (or any of my daughters) being taught that the physical expression of love is bad. I don't want them feeling guilty about the natural functions of their bodies. I don't want them to shy away from the nudity in classical art. I don't want $ex to be something they are afraid of. I think great care needs to be taken, in explaining that there can be dangers in p+()rnography or indiscriminate $ex, that these messages are not given inadvertently.
I'm not saying that our youth don't need education, morals, laws, or commandments. But for every caution about p+()rn, for every restraint placed on our exhuberant youth, I would like to see some joyous affirmation of the life-giving powers we hold within our bodies. We are in dire need of some celebration of our hormone-driven physical beings. Let's marvel at the beauty of the human form. Let's acknowledge the excitement and the wonder of arousal.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that the exact statement that was made in the above-referenced fireside was:
"Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings."This statement comes from the Gospel Topics manual and is available on the website lds.org under Pornography. I understand that our local leaders were using approved materials from the Church in preparing their fireside. However, I do not believe that the change in wording affects any of the points I made in this post.
He Said: Giving the P+()rn Talk to the Young Men
Last night I went to an Aaronic Priesthood fireside with my fourteen year-old son. We were about ten minutes late because it was supposed to start at 6:30 p.m. but we didn't get there on time. Lucky for us the fireside had not started because the bishop was calling young men not there to make sure everyone in the various Aaronic priesthood quorums were there. We weren't told what the theme of the fireside was ahead of time. But it became obvious in the first minutes as the bishop recited statistics that showed even good LDS young men were being exposed on the Internet to porn by the age of eleven and probably viewed it unintentionally six times by the age of sixteen. He offered to provide the statistics to us parents.
The bishop defined p+()rn as anything that causes a young man to be aroused. The Church defines it as "P+()rnography is any material depicting or describing the human body or $exual conduct in a way that arouses $exual feelings." The Bishop even said that some women had a serious problem with p+()rn. I had never really thought about females being into p+()rn but my wife later told me that some women like to look at nak*ed men and that women can become addicted to p+()rn. I guess I hadn't thought about that angle before and felt it was more of a male problem.
Later when we went home my wife was concerned when my son told her the bishop defined p+()rn as being aroused and she set us both straight that that was an objectionable definition. I felt a small sense of guilt as the bishop told us to put filters on our computers with password protection and to lock our television channels. Once when my son and I were watching television we came upon a movie channel that was R-rated and we saw full frontal nudi+y. I decided I had been too lax about allowing some channels to be unlocked and would take care of that problem this week. My son said that twice in his computer use has he seen any p+()rnographic material. I am hesitant to lock down my computer but I am now being more vigilant in watching my children's activities which I had never done before.
My son who is in to Japanese cartoons didn't feel as though he had a problem with p+()rn and reclined, embarrassed, in his seat during the whole talk. My wife pointed out that some Japanese anime has a nak*ed panel or two or scantily clad girls even if they aren't nak*ed. I decided that I should be more vigilant in monitoring my son's Internet viewing since our leaders suggested it. The truth is that being a librarian type I have never used filters because none of my daughters had a problem with p+()rnography. Even in my own personal life I have only viewed p+()rn about five or six times and almost all incidents were unintentional. I have probably seen about the same amount of R-rated television movies all but a couple while going up and down the TV dial. I admit I once watched Schlinder's List but fast forwarded during the $ex scene. My wife never lets me forget I watched an R-rated movie once. It is funny because right after my mission I actually walked out of the Goodbye Girl just because of the profanity. The other two or three R-rated movies were rated for violence Aliens and the Matrix. Our bishop told us we should not watch even violent films.
Being as I am not addicted to p+()rn nor do I consciously view it, I didn't realize how out of control this has become for our youth. I do know that there have been more talks eschewing it at General Conference by our former President Gordon B. Hinckley and current President Thomas S. Monson and that husbands particularly have been asked not to view filth. I do realize it has become a problem in the last few years as a close friend of one of my daughters who went on a mission and a son of a stake president member in Houston had a problem after his mission. I guess my current bishop must have had a boy or two confess otherwise why all of a sudden are we brought in and have the second counselor in our stake presidency take 45 minutes to warn us as parents and youth to not view p+()rn. The counselor referred to it as an insidious problem in which Satan uses to lead us away from the gospel.
When I was fresh off my mission I took a Book of Mormon class from Wayne Brickey where he told us as new returned missionaries that we shouldn't feel guilt if we stroked a girl's arm or danced with them and had a natural reaction. He told us that self-control needed to be learned that being aroused was also natural. It lessened the guilt for some of the guys in our class.
The problem with teaching young men about p+()rn that don't have any problem is that it puts it in your mind when it was not there to even start. I think that when you put a magnifying glass on the problem beyond a generalized talk it could put thoughts in boys heads that weren't there. One of my daughters told me that some of the boys in our ward do have a problem with p+()rn. Years ago I taught release-time seminary and one day I was teaching about keeping the Word of Wisdom when I called on a young man named Marcus after a CES filmstrip. Marcus was appalled by the young man in the film and said we really shouldn't be hypocrites as members and do bad things. About five minutes later he was called to the principal's office for being caught drinking on the bus.
I wonder if like Marcus's parents that many of us LDS parents don't have a clue what our own kids might be up to? If p+()rnography wasn't a problem I guess our leaders wouldn't need to beat it to death. I doubt at the current moment my son or seven daughters have a problem but one never knows what the future might bring. I just hope my leaders don't cause this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy by pointing it out to kids like my son who tend to be on the innocent geeky side.
The bishop defined p+()rn as anything that causes a young man to be aroused. The Church defines it as "P+()rnography is any material depicting or describing the human body or $exual conduct in a way that arouses $exual feelings." The Bishop even said that some women had a serious problem with p+()rn. I had never really thought about females being into p+()rn but my wife later told me that some women like to look at nak*ed men and that women can become addicted to p+()rn. I guess I hadn't thought about that angle before and felt it was more of a male problem.
Later when we went home my wife was concerned when my son told her the bishop defined p+()rn as being aroused and she set us both straight that that was an objectionable definition. I felt a small sense of guilt as the bishop told us to put filters on our computers with password protection and to lock our television channels. Once when my son and I were watching television we came upon a movie channel that was R-rated and we saw full frontal nudi+y. I decided I had been too lax about allowing some channels to be unlocked and would take care of that problem this week. My son said that twice in his computer use has he seen any p+()rnographic material. I am hesitant to lock down my computer but I am now being more vigilant in watching my children's activities which I had never done before.
My son who is in to Japanese cartoons didn't feel as though he had a problem with p+()rn and reclined, embarrassed, in his seat during the whole talk. My wife pointed out that some Japanese anime has a nak*ed panel or two or scantily clad girls even if they aren't nak*ed. I decided that I should be more vigilant in monitoring my son's Internet viewing since our leaders suggested it. The truth is that being a librarian type I have never used filters because none of my daughters had a problem with p+()rnography. Even in my own personal life I have only viewed p+()rn about five or six times and almost all incidents were unintentional. I have probably seen about the same amount of R-rated television movies all but a couple while going up and down the TV dial. I admit I once watched Schlinder's List but fast forwarded during the $ex scene. My wife never lets me forget I watched an R-rated movie once. It is funny because right after my mission I actually walked out of the Goodbye Girl just because of the profanity. The other two or three R-rated movies were rated for violence Aliens and the Matrix. Our bishop told us we should not watch even violent films.
Being as I am not addicted to p+()rn nor do I consciously view it, I didn't realize how out of control this has become for our youth. I do know that there have been more talks eschewing it at General Conference by our former President Gordon B. Hinckley and current President Thomas S. Monson and that husbands particularly have been asked not to view filth. I do realize it has become a problem in the last few years as a close friend of one of my daughters who went on a mission and a son of a stake president member in Houston had a problem after his mission. I guess my current bishop must have had a boy or two confess otherwise why all of a sudden are we brought in and have the second counselor in our stake presidency take 45 minutes to warn us as parents and youth to not view p+()rn. The counselor referred to it as an insidious problem in which Satan uses to lead us away from the gospel.
When I was fresh off my mission I took a Book of Mormon class from Wayne Brickey where he told us as new returned missionaries that we shouldn't feel guilt if we stroked a girl's arm or danced with them and had a natural reaction. He told us that self-control needed to be learned that being aroused was also natural. It lessened the guilt for some of the guys in our class.
The problem with teaching young men about p+()rn that don't have any problem is that it puts it in your mind when it was not there to even start. I think that when you put a magnifying glass on the problem beyond a generalized talk it could put thoughts in boys heads that weren't there. One of my daughters told me that some of the boys in our ward do have a problem with p+()rn. Years ago I taught release-time seminary and one day I was teaching about keeping the Word of Wisdom when I called on a young man named Marcus after a CES filmstrip. Marcus was appalled by the young man in the film and said we really shouldn't be hypocrites as members and do bad things. About five minutes later he was called to the principal's office for being caught drinking on the bus.
I wonder if like Marcus's parents that many of us LDS parents don't have a clue what our own kids might be up to? If p+()rnography wasn't a problem I guess our leaders wouldn't need to beat it to death. I doubt at the current moment my son or seven daughters have a problem but one never knows what the future might bring. I just hope my leaders don't cause this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy by pointing it out to kids like my son who tend to be on the innocent geeky side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
