Overhaul of FSY


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

The guidlines for youth "For the Strength of Youth" (FSY) has been updated.  But really, it is an overhaul.  As we went over the changes as a family, we recognized that the overall change was that instead of stating everything as a "rule" or a "Church position," everything was basically a "guideline."  The only rule repeated very clearly is that we are to obey the Law of Chastity.

When we discussed the change from "rules" to "principles," I commented that this can be both good and bad.  I kinda rambled for a bit about why...  Then my son summed it all up with one phrase:  "We're separating the wheats from the tares."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The guidlines for youth "For the Strength of Youth" (FSY) has been updated.  But really, it is an overhaul.  As we went over the changes as a family, we recognized that the overall change was that instead of stating everything as a "rule" or a "Church position," everything was basically a "guideline."  The only rule repeated very clearly is that we are to obey the Law of Chastity.

When we discussed the change from "rules" to "principles," I commented that this can be both good and bad.  I kinda rambled for a bit about why...  Then my son summed it all up with one phrase:  "We're separating the wheats from the tares."

Made me think of King Benjamin's comment:

29 And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.

I think there are now even more ways in our day to commit sin. But I think part of "guideline" approach too is that with good being called evil and evil good we are really going to need to rely on the principles of the gospel to help guide us to make good decisions in given situations because there are so many different things to take into consideration that previous generations have not had to deal with. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The youth (and adults) are more likely to believe and follow commandments / principles when they are revealed through the Holy Ghost rather than a booklet. Receiving personal revelation is the new normal our prophet is trying to establish.

Your son is one smart cookie. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was maybe even someone on this forum, who observed that Elder Uchtdorf’s underlying of the new FSY should be read together with Elder Renlund’s recent warning that some “revelations” are so clearly outside the Church’s teachings that they need not be given a second thought.

Elder Uchtdorf himself framed the overhaul as a call to live a “higher and holier way”, and he used that specific verbiage at least twice.  The behavioral standard isn’t changing, and (though I understand the philosophical basis behind it) I’m not even altogether comfortable with the “guidelines, not rules” paradigm; since that suggests that there may be excusable exceptions on a relatively routine basis—and there aren’t.  Except for a ridiculously narrow and unlikely set of circumstances (“Dad, the Gestapo are here and want to know if we are hiding any Jews!”), the behaviors we’ve grown up hearing described as spiritually destructive behavior are universally spiritually destructive.  The difference isn’t supposed to be what we do; it’s why we do it—and as we understand the why better, we’ll be expected to do more.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definite wheat vs tares thing. Mind you, I don't want to excuse true policies under a terrible version of "spirit of the law", but it can be quite easy to do things that are good and right without being good and right. 

Those pondering and praying won't find room for excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It was maybe even someone on this forum, who observed that Elder Uchtdorf’s underlying of the new FSY should be read together with Elder Renlund’s recent warning that some “revelations” are so clearly outside the Church’s teachings that they need not be given a second thought.

Elder Uchtdorf himself framed the overhaul as a call to live a “higher and holier way”, and he used that specific verbiage at least twice.  The behavioral standard isn’t changing, and (though I understand the philosophical basis behind it) I’m not even altogether comfortable with the “guidelines, not rules” paradigm; since that suggests that there may be excusable exceptions on a relatively routine basis—and there aren’t.  Except for a ridiculously narrow and unlikely set of circumstances (“Dad, the Gestapo are here and want to know if we are hiding any Jews!”), the behaviors we’ve grown up hearing described as spiritually destructive behavior are universally spiritually destructive.  The difference isn’t supposed to be what we do; it’s why we do it—and as we understand the why better, we’ll be expected to do more.  

59 minutes ago, Backroads said:

A definite wheat vs tares thing. Mind you, I don't want to excuse true policies under a terrible version of "spirit of the law", but it can be quite easy to do things that are good and right without being good and right. 

Those pondering and praying won't find room for excuses.

Kinda going along with both of you here.

We went over the parable of the stage coach driver getting his wheels close to the cliff.  One of my children had never heard it.  We repeated it.  Then my daughter made an interesting variation of the parable.

The area near the cliff is not flat.  It gradually curves steeper and steeper.   We can then interpose a "fence" where it is still "flat enough" that you can easily recover back to the road.  Now that the fence is gone, it is very easy to think, "Oh, yeah!  Now we can go a bit farther and we'll still be safe."  But the parable of the rip-tide warns us that it may still not be a good idea because there are other forces besides gravity beyond the fence.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, unless you spell it out, young people will find a way to do the exact opposite.

This occurs all the way through their college years.

If I am teaching a General American History class and we are currently on the section pertaining to the Revolutionary War and  I tell them to focus on the the important events of the Battle of Long Island in preparation for a quiz in the next class...

Over half of them will fail the quiz and almost all of them will not be able to answer even 4 questions.

If I get more specific and tell them I am looking specifically at alternate names for the battle, what strategically important port the British gained access to via the results of this battle, Who the different commanders were for each of the armies and what armies were involved, In what month the battle occurred and where the British landed, what the American resolution to ending the battle was and how that is considered by some a miracle...

I would get a lot more passing the quiz and almost half of the class getting all 4 questions correct.

One would hope that by telling them to study that battle they would get a more comprehensive understanding of that battle and it's impact upon the War itself.  That almost never happens.  Out of a class of 100, I may be lucky to get 4 or 5 that will do that among the underclassmen that are taking general history credits.  It just does NOT work.  If I want them to learn something, I HAVE to be more specific.

Another example.  If I tell a class of 100 students to please be respectful of my time and other students in our conversations, invariably they will come in and never be quiet for lecture.  They will talk all the way through it enmass.  Since it is not specified, many will feel that they are able to talk through class or do other things (and why they even come to class in this instance...I do not know.  But it will happen, it happens all the time to new Professors and graduate students who are teaching). 

If I tell them that they need to be quiet and let me talk or I will either ask them to leave, or have a penalty for class lecture participation for bothering the rest of the class, they will show up and let me start talking.  You'll still get an individual or two that doesn't realize to be quiet, but normally a few seconds of me staring will make them realize they are holding up the entire class.  If that fails, then normally, they are asked to leave until they can be ready to respect my time and the others in the class.

I tell them that during a conversation I will call on individuals who show a willingness to discuss, but it is ONE person talking at a time and unless I call on a student, they are not talking.  Only the student I call on will talk, and then we will move on to the next. 

Specific rules like this for behavior tend to be better at helping students behave in class than a general request.

Specific beats generalized with younger individuals.

Relating that to the most recent Strength of the Youth book...my grandson asked me the day of conference over the phone if I would no longer be upset if he went on a date with a girl he has his eye on (he is 14).  I said...I don't think that is such a good idea.  The book doesn't just toss out the previous advice from General authorities.  He is a good kid and hasn't gone out on a date, but he sure thought about it already.  I know he isn't alone. 

Our Bishop came out last Sunday to discuss this as well, saying he's gotten a multitude of Youth saying that there is no longer any rules against tattoos or other things that were restricted before.  It seems to be a common interpretation of many youth if what he said is true.

The question to me then isn't whether taking specifics out is good or not in regards to what youth will understand in what they should or should not do.  Unless they are exceptional, youth will take anything that isn't specific as saying they are allowed to do it in my experience.

The question is WHY the Church has decided to use this approach.  I'm not sure yet.  It could be that some youth are so abrasive against having rules specified toward them that they will automatically rebel against the rules.  Thus, with specific rules to rebel against, they will do so.  Generalized ideas give them less to actually fight against.

Those who do that in universities will invariably rebel enough to flunk out.  Normally they won't even show up to class most of the time.  The church doesn't have that luxury though, they need to appeal to all the youth, not just the ones that have a desire to participate.

At least, that's one guess, but I'm not sure.  I'm still pondering the WHY's of how the new pamphlet is formatted. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones I've seen the same kinds of questions around this. Are the old standards still in place or not?

In general, I like the idea of a principles based approach, so I would say that, if we think the old standards are still in place (like no tattoos or limits on piercings or dating age or whatever it is), then we need to find and understand the principles behind the standards that would convince our youth to agree to live by those standards.

Dating age, for example. Growing up in the '80s, when we would talk about the principle behind waiting until you are 16 to date, it was mostly based on a fear of sex. The principle I was taught was that those who started dating younger started having sex earlier. I think the principle underlying that principle (and the one I would focus on now, if I were in the position to teach youth) is that it is a broader question of maturity. Dating relationships require a certain level of maturity, certain relationship and social skills. Under the new FSY, rather than focusing on a calendar age, I would want to focus on those skills and markers of maturity that I think are important in navigating dating relationships. Another thing that seems important is that dating seems to have a new and different meaning to the current generation than it did back in the '80s and '90s, so there is probably value in seeking to understand how the youth we are talking with understand the idea of dating (versus hanging out or other co-ed social activities they might engage in).

As for tattoos and piercings. Growing up in the '80s, the meanings I attributed to tattoos and piercings and wild hair colors/styles and other crazy fashion ideas of the idea was that they were markers of rebellion and disobedience. Beards and long hair (on men) and sandals (again on men) were markers of the "hippie" counter culture movement and associated with the wild "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" culture of the '60s and '70s. If I were to address these things under the new FSY, I would focus on these principles and meanings. Of course, bringing it into the 21st century, these fashion markers don't seem to have the same meanings for today's youth, so it would be important to understand the meanings they associate with these things. From the different meanings and principles around how we might make such choices, we can talk about decisions related to tattoos and piercings.

I like the idea of a principled based approach to these things. I think the real challenge for us old dogs might be understanding the meanings and principles that our youth will be operating under. For those of us less comfortable with changes to these standards, how are we going to react when the youth feel differently about the underlying principles and meanings around some of their decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Dating age, for example. Growing up in the '80s, when we would talk about the principle behind waiting until you are 16 to date, it was mostly based on a fear of sex. The principle I was taught was that those who started dating younger started having sex earlier. I think the principle underlying that principle (and the one I would focus on now, if I were in the position to teach youth) is that it is a broader question of maturity. Dating relationships require a certain level of maturity, certain relationship and social skills. Under the new FSY, rather than focusing on a calendar age, I would want to focus on those skills and markers of maturity that I think are important in navigating dating relationships. Another thing that seems important is that dating seems to have a new and different meaning to the current generation than it did back in the '80s and '90s, so there is probably value in seeking to understand how the youth we are talking with understand the idea of dating (versus hanging out or other co-ed social activities they might engage in).

These are great points. 
 

I think the church is very wise to see the trend in dating is changing. Like you mentioned, this isn’t 1988 where women graduated high school and started popping out babies nine months later. The church is realizing what some of us refuse to accept. The world, even conservative religious communities, isn’t changing. It’s already changed.  

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2022 at 8:58 AM, Carborendum said:

Then my son summed it all up with one phrase:  "We're separating the wheats from the tares."

FWIW, I don't think changing "rules" to "guidelines" has any effect on separating the wheats from tares. Nor do I believe that has anything to do with the changes. I think, rather, that the changes are meant to help gather, and that we are still very much in the gathering stage of the harvest, and that changing the rules to guidelines is meant to help with that gathering. I believe that "rules" actually do a much cleaner job of separating the wheat from the tares, whereas the tares can more easily live with the wheat under guidelines that aren't hard rules, and that moreover, there is some wheat that was getting separated out by the "rules".

Just my thoughts. Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2022 at 4:23 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

the behaviors we’ve grown up hearing described as spiritually destructive behavior are universally spiritually destructive.

By implication, the change from a hard rule to not date before one's 16 to a guideline that one shouldn't date before they're too young (16 being a starting point for consideration) means that the almost 16-year-old who, with their parent's, determines that going on their first date a month or two before they're 16 is acceptable because they are particularly mature, is still spiritually destructive?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I think the church is very wise to see the trend in dating is changing. Like you mentioned, this isn’t 1988 where women graduated high school and started popping out babies nine months later. The church is realizing what some of us refuse to accept. The world, even conservative religious communities, are changing. 

I'm not following your logic. You seem to be saying that because people are getting married and having children later in life, as a general trend, that.......the church has now adopted the idea that dating at a younger age is okay?

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not following your logic. You seem to be saying that because people are getting married and having children later in life, as a general trend, that.......the church has now adopted the idea that dating at a younger age is okay?

Correct me if I'm mistaken.

I could have misread it. Didn’t the church take away age minimums for dating? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

I could have misread it. Didn’t the church take away age minimums for dating? 

Basically, yes. But what I don't follow is how that would be a response to the fact that people aren't "pooping out" (as you so eloquently put it) babies nine months out of high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Basically, yes. But what I don't follow is how that would be a response to the fact that people aren't "pooping out" (as you so eloquently put it) babies nine months out of high school.

Well if I misread I apologize, but I thought they adjusted the ages in order to reflect a society where people get married and start having babies later. Which is happening all over the place. Like I said, if I misread it-well it won’t be the first or last time that happens.

 

and I said popping, like popcorn.  Not what you wrote.  

 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well if I misread I apologize, but I thought they adjusted the ages in order to reflect a society where people get married and start having babies later. Which is happening all over the place. Like I said, if I misread it-well it won’t be the first or last time that happens.

Well, as I said, that doesn't logically equate to me. What they changed it from was (not exact quotes) "don't date before age 16" to "don't date before you're mature enough (consider 16)". So it's really not that big of a change. It just allows for the reality that some kids and parents may determine that they are okay to go on a date in the right circumstance prior to the 16th birthday. It does, also, allow for those who want to, to abuse the idea entirely and have really no restrictions on dating age. That doesn't seem related to when people marry or "poop" out kids. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By implication, the change from a hard rule to not date before one's 16 to a guideline that one shouldn't date before they're too young (16 being a starting point for consideration) means that the almost 16-year-old who, with their parent's, determines that going on their first date a month or two before they're 16 is acceptable because they are particularly mature, is still spiritually destructive?

You make me wish I had added the proviso “spiritually destructive behavior or hazardous”, so let’s just pretend I did that from the beginning. ;)

As a general proposition:  the ratio of the number of people who think they are exceptional, versus the number of people who actually are exceptional, tends to be enormous; particularly where matters of spiritual development and behavioral praxis are concerned.  And people who truly are spiritually exceptional—and know it—tend not to remain spiritually exceptional for very long.

With regard to dating age specifically:  Do we know that as society evolves, youth of a particular age may find themselves more (or less) “mature” and ready for certain activities and challenges than youth of a particular age a generation or a century ago and that behavioral standards may in some degree morph in response to societal changes?  Yes.

Do we also know that humans in general, and teenagers in particular, have a remarkable ability to get “revelations” that harmonize perfectly with their own predilections and prejudices (and libidos)?  Also, yes.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You make me wish I had added the proviso “spiritually destructive behavior or hazardous”, so let’s just pretend I did that from the beginning.

Well, you know I was just trying to out lawyer the lawyer anyhow, right? :D Since I actually knew exactly what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I don't think changing "rules" to "guidelines" has any effect on separating the wheats from tares. Nor do I believe that has anything to do with the changes. I think, rather, that the changes are meant to help gather, and that we are still very much in the gathering stage of the harvest, and that changing the rules to guidelines is meant to help with that gathering. I believe that "rules" actually do a much cleaner job of separating the wheat from the tares, whereas the tares can more easily live with the wheat under guidelines that aren't hard rules, and that moreover, there is some wheat that was getting separated out by the "rules".

Just my thoughts. Who knows.

I think there may be two considerations which are both valid in their own way.  Both of them are obeying the rules only because they are rules. But they have different attitudes about them.

The first (which is what I believe you were alluding to -- correct me if I'm wrong) is that if they're only behaving a certain way because they believe in rules.  And rules are good.  So, thank Heaven we have them to guide us.  If we only obey because it is a rule and not because we understand the underlying principle behind them, then that will not be sufficient to survive in the coming tribulations.  We need to be in tune.  We need guidelines to help us focus.  But we need to be the guiding power of the Holy Ghost if we are to survive.  Those who depend on the rules alone to guide them may not have enough to survive.

The second is that there are those that begrudgingly follow the rules.  Now that the rules are gone, then, heck!  Forget the principles.  We can do whatever we want.  This second group was who I was considering the tares.

That said, I don't know of too many people who have gotten into trouble by following the rules without necessarily understanding the principles behind them.  Adam knew not save the Lord commanded him.  But by obeying the rules for a time, he learned what the rules were about.  True, we don't want to remain there indefinitely.  But if we obey because we have faith that it is a commandment of God, we usually don't remain in ignorance for long.

The Lord sees faithful obedience differently than blind obedience.  And faith is rewarded.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it may be worth telling that I just came across the actual meaning of "line upon line, precept upon precept."  I thought it was "lines of scripture" and "concepts/teaching from the Almighty" respectively.  Turns out, no.

A line is a string/rope/cable that was used to create a straight line so that construction (for example) could use it as a "Guideline" or "rule" to build a straight wall (for example).  Today we might say "That's a line I'm not willing to cross."

A precept is a commandment.  It is also an ordinance or a covenant.  It is also sometimes used to refer to the mouthpiece pronouncing the precept (the prophet).

We're not expected to learn it all or even be obedient all at once.  But we are expected to learn all we can and become obedient.  The word of wisdom was not given originally as constraint or command.  But later, it was.

I wonder what the difference is between a "guideline" or a "rule".  Degree?  Possibly.  I don't know if it makes much difference.  It is the attitude towards them that gives them weight.  Are they good principles?  Do we obey good principles?  Then what does it matter?  If we use the word "guideline" as an excuse to simply do whatever we want, then do we care if it is a good principle anyway?  If they are good principles, what difference does it make if it is a rule or a guideline?  We should follow them.

If it is rule does that make us somehow less likely to find excuses or exceptions?  Then maybe it is a good thing to call them rules.  Who has never considered an exception to the rule in their lives?

Rule?  Guideline?  We use either one to keep us straight.  And with a string, it is very easy to give less heed to that line and make a crooked wall.  Who cares about a stupid string?  It's just a piece of vegetable matter twisted together.  Why do we let that insignificant piece of fiber tell us what to do?

How easily we forget the magnificent edifice we were meant to build by that guideline.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the darkness of the world increases our youth will need to be able to access the light of the gospel, not just specific rules. Simply knowing the commandments does not fortify me against temptation but spending time in the scriptures and praying does. The innocence of youth is disappearing increasingly earlier in life and "because I said so" is just not enough. They need to gain conviction of these truths for themselves earlier as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share