Holidays

Holidays and children and their twisted panty parents.

"The holidays" is that time of year we fall off the wagon. We chuck all those good intentions, eat stuff we shouldn't, buy a big pile of stuff we know we can't afford and party far more than we can survive.

The time between Thanksgiving (in the US) and Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanza is when all the bad behavior comes out. It starts with a day when I eat lots of crazy food. Then we have a day of rabid consumption. I spend like someone else will pay the bill. I encourage children to want everything in the stores and why not? I want everything in the stores. Rampant consumerism is the norm for these four weeks. We're stocking up on amusements and food to keep us entertained and filled during the long dark days. I know its crazy, but I do it anyway.

Every year I scratch my head after its over wondering was it worth it. It kind strange, we are celebrating the birthday of somebody which we all know was born months later. We do it with symbols and rituals that didn't exist when he was alive or have nothing at all to do with his life. We do a good job of ignoring all he told us in this season. Parents spend less time with their children, children less time with their aged parents, but what gift does parent or child really want? Time spent together.


Long ago, before preserved food, the last week of December marked the beginning of winter. Winter was the season we starved. No fresh vegetables or fruit. There wasn't even enough grass to keep many animals alive except a few breeders and a milk cow. Everything else was harvested. The excess animals slaughtered. We salted what we could and hid a few tough veggies in the root cellar. From then on it was funky food, jerky and turnips until mid-spring, if we were lucky. Otherwise, nothing. Lent pretty much made a virtue of necessity.

So we had this last blowout party that lasted four weeks. It went by a lot of names, but today it's "the holidays". We ate like there was no tomorrow.

We've always had children, but childhood is new, dating from the early nineteenth century as reaction to the repugnance of child labor practices in the industrial revolution. Parenthood goes back to the beginning of humanity but the idea of the parents as nurturers of childhood only dates from the invention of modern childhood. The earlier model was the authoritarian parent in which the parent was the ruler and the child the subject without recourse to appeal. In the parents old age this role would reverse leaving the the aged parent powerless anciently. The idea of catering to a parent's wishes is modern and not universal even 200 years later.

Back to reality. A bit over 2000 years ago a male child was born to very young woman who was known to be pregnant at the time she got married. He was born into a family that had no wealth or status in a backwater village. We only know two events for the first 30 years of his life: he caused a commotion with the temple priests just before his bar mitzvah and his family lived as fugitives from the authorities for a few years. Otherwise, nothing of note. Then one day he and his cousin decided to become itinerant preachers. They wandered around living off the generosity of a few relatives and friends but otherwise living pretty rough. Some of the things they said got the authorities stirred up and it got so bad that one was assassinated and the other executed on a pretext. His friends kept telling stories about him and the things he said and a few believed them and kept the story alive.

The story says nothing kind about the wealthy or powerful. It says nothing about any commercial activity or consumption that is positive. It says nothing good about eating great quantities of food. It tells nothing of decorated trees or houses. It condemns nobody for disobedience of authority, adultery, inappropriate choices of entertainment or courtship practices. What it does condemn is fixation on wealth and political power. It condemns religious rigidity, lack of compassion and empathy, toleration of poverty and suffering and greed.

When the kids get greedy, when the adults get too busy, when we don't have the time for each other and when we are quick to condemn, what would He say? Maybe "forgive them for they know not what they do". What would He tell me? I think, "Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more".

As I go through this season, I try to remember that impoverished, scruffy kid from nowhere who told us to take care of each other, to do good for its own sake and to put principles above the law. I remember that He changed the world.

Spaces

A long ways back I wrote a longish poem about the spaces between us all. The feelings of that poem stay with me.

We like our personal space, it is a way we assert our individuality which we so painfully build as we emerge from childhood to adulthood. Few of us have ever reexamined the necessity of that space in later years. Its as if we fear that if we relax the boundaries a bit we'll fall back into childish helplessness.

Adulthood is spent with a good deal of anxiety about being lonely. Why? Because we only touch at a distance, true intimacy is risky and increases our emotional vulnerability. Children love without boundaries. Adults erect walls everywhere. We are secure in our little isolated islands.

But what if we did fore-go the walls? What would happen?  We could find that a lot of people are sociopaths who will rob us of all that we value. That's got to be the worst scenario. But wait, don't we have that problem now? Sociopaths are the ones who take from everyone else and put it behind their own wall. If 'normal' healthy people stopped erecting walls, wouldn't the few sociopaths keeping their walls be clearly visible? Maybe then we could finally wall them off from the rest of us and live less lonely, most connected lives. Maybe we could love without boundaries and live without fear.

The poem is called "If". Its' here on this blog. Let's tear down the wall.

Our phobic life

When entrepreneurs tell their stories a common thread is that they didn't start businesses to get rich. The successful do gain wealth but they say it was never their goal. In fact, many sell their newly successful businesses to other more mundane managers just as they are growing quickly. They have found that what really gets them excited is creation of a new thing or a new relationship.

We're not all entrepreneurs, they are an uncommon skill set but we are creative in unique ways most of which won't make us rich, powerful or famous. That bit of wisdom is merely a comment on how screwed up our economic lives are, not on the value of the creations. After all, if you create a song, a poem, a painting, a decoration, a bauble or a curious mind in just one person isn't that success?

In six decades of more or less regular breathing, a few lessons have penetrated; one being that almost everyone is born curious and creative. Tragically the majority have it trained out of their active lives by inflexible parents, jealous peers, an eduction system that values uniformity, socialization and a work world that wants to determine ones value by a short list of qualities. A few persist with the motivation, courage and originality they were blessed with and make our lives the better for it. How much better would it be if more did?

What is it that kills the curiosity and creativity? Mostly an abundance or fear and risk avoidance. We live our lives as we would walk through a mine field. We carefully consider every step, searching for anything unexpected that might be a threat. We carefully step only where others have already stepped. It's called risk avoidance behavior. It comes from fear, the message of our primitive lizard brain. In simple animals it keeps the animal alive, but how many creative lizards do you know? It  may control their lives but should it control ours? We live in a world where we are extremely unlikely to become prey or starve to death because we don't find our own food.

Keeping in mind that our inner lizard has some vestigial usefulness such as keeping us from walking in front of buses or falling down manholes, we need to put the fear out to the center of our views and stop living like phobic neurotics. Be creative. Take risks. Be curious. Live.

Teaching By the Spirit - D&C 42 and the Manuals

Adapted from another's blog: (beginningsnew)

Teaching By the Spirit: D&C 42:12-14 and the Manuals

I have been doing some work on D&C 42:12-14 and I wanted to test out my thoughts here.

A perpetual complaint about the programs is: the manuals. They are out of date, they have problematic assumptions about the roles, they don't have much "meat" to them, etc.

Today I'm going to take a look at D&C 42:12-14 and how it relates specifically to the manuals.

D&C 42:12-14 are one of the usual places we go for the idea of "teaching by the Spirit." Verse 12 commands that we teach "the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon." In verse 13, this is qualified by two things: one, observe the covenants and church articles (all those duties in section 20, to be precise) and two, teach "as they shall be directed by the Spirit." Finally, verse 14 adds how to get the Spirit: "the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith" and what to do if it doesn't come: "if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach."

Now, let's apply this to teaching.

First, the heart of teaching in any classroom in the church, according to verse 12, ought to be the scriptures. In the scriptures we find the principles of the gospel, and the fulness of the gospel. Any question we have, or our students may have, will be found in there. It may take time and thought to work through those scriptures, but they are in there. Using scripture, relying on scripture, teaching the students to read their scriptures: these will accomplish our ultimate goals of learning and living the gospel.

Second, all of this is conditioned by being "directed by the Spirit." What form does this take, exactly? Understanding the Spirit is the greatest and hardest thing to learn and to teach. Looking at D&C 20:45, which quotes from Moroni 6:9, may give us a few clues, however. When Moroni talks about the elders conducting meetings according to the Spirit, he lists a few things they may be lead to do: preach, exhort, pray, supplicate, or sing. I don't think this applies just to an elder conducting a sacrament meeting in early Utah history. I think a teacher in a classroom today also has these options available: a teacher might feel impressed to exhort members to keep a commandment just discussed in the scriptures. Or, a teacher might feel impressed to allow for some silent time to pray or ponder. A teacher might play music or ask the class to sing. Any of these things could take place, even during a time set a part for "teaching."

Another possibility comes from D&C 46, which came soon after D&C 42:12-14 and tried to clarify some things. In this section we get a list of the gifts of the Spirit. Here we read that everyone has spiritual gifts, and all the gifts are given to benefit each other. Many of these gifts are not things we would experience privately, but in a group setting. Perhaps one way to be open to the Spirit is to realize that every person in the room has access to the Spirit, not just us. A student can raise her hand and share an insight that came from the Spirit just as much as we can share our own thoughts by the Spirit. Also, D&C 46 encourages us to seek after all these gifts: of knowledge, wisdom, testimony, etc.

Third, we have to wonder, what if the Spirit doesn't come? What if we pray for a spiritual gift, but we don't receive it?  Does this mean we shouldn't teach? How do we make sense of that? Well, I certainly don't have the definitive answer but I have some ideas. It could be that we pray for help with our lesson outline, but the Spirit doesn't come because there is another way the Spirit wants us to spend the time in our classroom. Maybe spending time getting to know each other better or praying for someone in the class is actually where the Spirit is leading us, rather than the plan we had of opening up the scriptures and teaching a lesson. Another possibility is that we are praying for a spiritual gift or for the Spirit because we want our lesson to go well, or, we don't want to be embarrassed. D&C 46 cautioned that we can't seek after gifts as a sign, or to just to benefit ourselves (to "consume it upon their lusts" as D&C 46:9 puts it). Gifts have to be sought so that "all may be benefited." Perhaps sometimes we pray for the Spirit desperately, in hopes that the lesson won't feel like a flop. I know I've done that. It isn't in faith or in charity, but in despair and frustration. And certainly without the Spirit. I end up feeling like a said a few words, but I didn't really teach anything. Also, I think there are times where we see what we take to be a spiritual gift in another teacher (wow, his lessons are so spiritual. wow, the students really love her handouts. wow, what cool object lessons) and we try to imitate what he did rather than see what the Spirit wants us to do. When we try to force a "spiritual" lesson setting, we may be doing what D&C 46 and D&C 50 describe as following after spirits we couldn't understand. We may have had some "power" in our classroom, but it wasn't the Spirit - it was by "some other way."

So what do these three points have to do with the lesson manuals? Aren't we supposed to teach from them? And does the mere presence of lesson manuals somehow sabotage teaching by the Spirit?

First, permit me to again debunk something I've debunked before. Sticking to the "approved material" doesn't mean using the lesson outline line by line. Let me show this by looking right at the Introduction :

Elder M. Russell Ballard counseled: “Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials." 

Note that he didn't say, "stick to the manual" but to the scriptures (first in the list!) and the manuals. The scriptures are not extraneous material, they are the primary material.

The basic foundation for the course is the scriptures. Encourage the young women to bring their copies of the standard works to class each week.

The "basic foundation" is the scriptures, not the manual. And the students should be learning right from them, every week.

Sometimes a [student] may give the correct answer in his own words without turning to the passage of scripture. When this occurs, ask additional questions to get him to read the scripture, for example, “How did Paul say it?” or “What additional insights can we gain from this passage?”

This is the real clincher for me. The instructions, in the manuals themselves, are to point to the scriptures as much and as thoroughly as possible. The answers are not in the teacher, not in the manual, but in the scriptures. I love the idea of asking the students what they learned by how it was said in the scriptures. It seems to me to encourage an open-ended discussion-based lesson time, where the students and the teacher are learning together.

And this encourages the teacher and the student to be open to how the Spirit might be guiding them. A student has as much access to the Spirit as we do. I hate to see answers overlooked because they don't match the ones in the manual. The students are thinking. They are intelligent. They are interesting. And the more we push them to think the more they will feel free to discuss the scriptures and to listen to any promptings they are receiving. And that's where the real truth is!

Left margin notations suggest teaching methods

Please note that the manuals "suggest" teaching methods. Otherwise, where is the Spirit? The object lesson, the stories, the handouts, these are all ideas. But it is up to you, the teacher, to seek the Spirit to know how it will direct you. Seek spiritual gifts. Think up ideas. But be ready to yield to wherever it seems the Spirit is leading the lesson, in the very moment.

So yes the manual is insufficient. Though it could be improved, would it ever be sufficient without the Spirit? Without a teacher seeking spiritual gifts? Without students who are thinking and receiving inspiration as well? The unfortunate thing is that too often, when teachers recognize that the manual is insufficient, they search the internet for supplements like cute handouts, sappy stories, or cool object lessons. Yes, these do dress things up a bit, but often only as a covering over an otherwise bland, Spirit-less lesson. (Elder Holland calls these sorts of things "spiritual twinkies.") These are not bad in themselves of course. A variety of teaching methods is great, but only as guided by the Spirit and not to make us look good (or to "entertain" the class - which is in essence the same thing). Seek first the Spirit, then all this is given to you. Then the Spirit can help you see that this group, this Sunday needs this song or that reminder. Or maybe a personal story. Or perhaps you are suddenly fascinated by how Alma discussed prayer and decide to spend the majority of the time on one chapter of scripture. Or after much prayer and thinking, you realize that nothing seems quite right, so you go into the classroom and see what surprises you. All of this is teaching by the Spirit. And I think it not only distracts us from the quality of the manual, it distracts us from ourselves. It isn't up to us to have a fantastic lesson. We point the students to the scriptures. We realize that God's work can actually happen in the classroom (and will!). God is in charge, we are just there for the ride!

A hard leap of faith. But I encourage you to try it. Trust the students. They will have a lot to say that will be inspiring. Trust the scriptures. The principles of the gospel are found there. Trust that God has a work He  is after, and we are just helping him. Rather than asking God to send the Spirit to help us with our plans, let us pray that we can help God with His plans.

Oh, and one more thing: let me know how it goes. :)

Things of My Soul: Finding Your Blessed Abnormality

Things of My Soul: Finding Your Blessed Abnormality

CuriousCity: Yeah, and all that

CuriousCity: Yeah, and all that: It's true, I'm a hippie. Have been since a particularly good day in 1965. I like diversity and mixing of cultures. The natural and the ...

Cognitive dissonance is the prelude to learning

Cognitive dissonance is the prelude to learning.The more confused you are, the more ready you are to learn a better way.

Understanding your role is less important than being you.

When thoughts go in circles it's time to dance, not march.

No amount of studying of ancient texts, meditation or prayer will tell you what direction to go when you don't know what you'll do when you get there.

One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree.
"Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" was his response.
"I don't know", Alice answered.
"Then", said the cat, "it doesn't matter.”

When we get no answer to a prayer, the answer may be "do what you think is best".

Fear creates confusion and paralysis.

Don't ask "who am I?", be who you want to be.

Fictions, romances and dramas are never real. They are a way of imagining, a way of pondering our self. We never find our dream mate, we find a messed up, imperfect, insecure, confused and guilt-ridden partner who surprises us with respect, love and devotion.


We are complex, there are no simple explanations of who we are.
Be careful in unmasking people. Sometimes they are only the mask.
The purpose of life is to understand the purpose of life is to understand the purpose of life. Otherwise it's just make babies and die quietly.

Be!  
You can't see yourself in a mirror. When you look really closely at your reflection you don't see the back of your head. The back of your head only exists in another mirror.

Who would Jesus be?

There is an answer to the question but we've forgotten what we asked.

If eternal happiness begins after death then it's not eternal is it?