Blasphemous Question

[wuapinmon]

Even assuming your claim is true, I'm not sure why you conclude that gives you carte blanche.

He is being sarcastic. Look at what he's said. Even the good Dr. Dr. doesn't have the hubris to pull this off without a smirk.

[Rosebud]

You seem to be pretty certain about what the answer was supposed to be to the question that was posed. I don't see any reason why whatever it was that they wanted you to answer couldn't have included your answer as well. In fact, I think that the Book of Mormon is pretty explicit in showing that this is a very acceptable answer.

Me too.

I think we all pretty much know what the right answers are to the questions that are posed, though, don't we? I've been in the church all my life. I could probably answer every question in a particular lesson before I even heard what they were. The teacher could tell me the lesson subject and I could share the right answers standing on my head with my earbuds in. I'm correlated.

The way the questions are worded doesn't exactly leave us all that much room to come up with the wrong answers.

[creekster]

The way the questions are worded doesn't exactly leave us all that much room to come up with the wrong answers.

Darn that correlation; if only we could be led to the wrong answer once in a while.

[Rosebud]

Darn that correlation; if only we could be led to the wrong answer once in a while.

Sounds like fun. You must be like that off-the-wall kid in my primary class when I was growing up. You know the one: the kid who can't handle answering the questions right 'cause he feels so controlled by them. I, OTOH, was that perfect little girl who gave all the correct answers with tones of superiority in my voice. (Please try to add a haughty intonation to the word "I" in that last sentence.)

Go watch primary one of these days. A high percentage of kids react negatively to the leading questions. Guessing they might want to be allowed to think up their own answers.... heaven forbid.

[Surfah]

Sounds like fun. You must be like that off-the-wall kid in my primary class when I was growing up. You know the one: the kid who can't handle answering the questions right 'cause he feels so controlled by them. I, OTOH, was that perfect little girl who gave all the correct answers with tones of superiority in my voice. (Please try to add a haughty intonation to the word "I" in that last sentence.)

Go watch primary one of these days. A high percentage of kids react negatively to the leading questions. Guessing they might want to be allowed to think up their own answers.... heaven forbid.

What is a high percentage? This is certainly not the case in my experience with primary (just finished a two year tour with Gidget). I'd argue that most of the kids love leading questions because they know the answers. The last thing they want to do amongst their peers is to give a wrong answer and feel embarrassed. Of course there are a few OTW kids who are always good for a silly answer. If they didn't get raucous laughter out of the rest of the primary and teacher's I'm sure they'd stop. But as a percentage these kids represent maybe 5% of the primary. Not a high percentage if you ask me.

Our class always had more thoughtful questions and answers than when the primary met together for say sharing time. But I think this is a product of size and setting. Leading questions don't bother me in a large group as a teacher because it allows you to maintain control over topic and direction. The last thing I want as a teacher is to ask a poor question that turns my intended course of discussion on its head. On occasion this may lead to better introspection and conversation, but more often than not it seems to devolve and there is little chance of bringing the discussion back to the prepared material. I don't think this has to be a 'what to think vs. how to think' argument. A good teacher can inspire both.

[Rosebud]

What is a high percentage? This is certainly not the case in my experience with primary (just finished a two year tour with Gidget). I'd argue that most of the kids love leading questions because they know the answers. The last thing they want to do amongst their peers is to give a wrong answer and feel embarrassed. Of course there are a few OTW kids who are always good for a silly answer. If they didn't get raucous laughter out of the rest of the primary and teacher's I'm sure they'd stop. But as a percentage these kids represent maybe 5% of the primary. Not a high percentage if you ask me.

Our class always had more thoughtful questions and answers than when the primary met together for say sharing time. But I think this is a product of size and setting. Leading questions don't bother me in a large group as a teacher because it allows you to maintain control over topic and direction. The last thing I want as a teacher is to ask a poor question that turns my intended course of discussion on its head. On occasion this may lead to better introspection and conversation, but more often than not it seems to devolve and there is little chance of bringing the discussion back to the prepared material. I don't think this has to be a 'what to think vs. how to think' argument. A good teacher can inspire both.

I think this is one of those topics that needs to be discussed with the understanding that there are strong, correct arguments on both sides. I'm just processing what I see and trying to create an awareness of the impact of correlation on us and, in this case, the use of leading questions.

I agree with a lot of what you say here. I also think that leading questions make me feel queasy. Plus, in my 13 years of primary callings I've noticed that discussions that require original thought quickly settle most of the OTW kids and more directly engage the ones who are generally well behaved. I'm not necessarily advocating change, though. I'm sharing observations.

I just think a lot of us will benefit from becoming sort of meta-cognitive of the effects correlation has had on us. Maybe I'm wrong. It's pretty fun for me to think back about how I felt about all those leading questions when I was a child and to be figuring out where they fit in the progression of the church and where we were historically when correlation was implemented.

As for the high percentage, that would require someone to do some social research. I, for one, think that the leading questions affect all of the kids of normal to high intelligence and my opinion is that in some ways the questions are beneficial and in some ways they are detrimental.

[I.J. Reilly]

Me too.

I think we all pretty much know what the right answers are to the questions that are posed, though, don't we? I've been in the church all my life. I could probably answer every question in a particular lesson before I even heard what they were. The teacher could tell me the lesson subject and I could share the right answers standing on my head with my earbuds in. I'm correlated.

The way the questions are worded doesn't exactly leave us all that much room to come up with the wrong answers.

Since you agree with me that the BOM is fairly explicit in giving the answer that you gave to the question, and since I can recall more than a few times in my life hearing people teach this over the pulpit (including GC), that is, that God often does answer prayers in a way that helps us internally deal with the external forces, as opposed to the magic wand way, then I fail to see why your answer could not have been part of the "correlated" answer.

My main point is, though, that I think that you are proclaiming a bogeyman that just isn't there, at least not in this instance. I have my own problems with the extent of correlation, but you seem to want to insert correlation as the answer to nearly every problem you perceive in the church.

If you want to give a certain answer in church, do it, even if you don't think it's the "right" answer. The Church has yet to issue shock collars that go off with a "wrong" answer. I've sat through enough crazy answers in church classes to know that people will generally let you speak, and there are very few things that you can say in church that are going to warrant a sit-down with the bishop. Perhaps explain the "why" to your answer so that others get what you're talking about and don't just roll their eyes the next time they see you with your hand raised. You may be surprised with the result.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Go watch primary one of these days. A high percentage of kids react negatively to the leading questions. Guessing they might want to be allowed to think up their own answers.... heaven forbid.

I guess it depends on how you are defining kid. If you are saying 12-17, then I agree. If you are saying 4-11, then I agree with Surfah.

[Rosebud]

Since you agree with me that the BOM is fairly explicit in giving the answer that you gave to the question, and since I can recall more than a few times in my life hearing people teach this over the pulpit (including GC), that is, that God often does answer prayers in a way that helps us internally deal with the external forces, as opposed to the magic wand way, then I fail to see why your answer could not have been part of the "correlated" answer.

The point was that I was asked a leading question, not that I gave an uncorrelated answer. My answer to the question itself had more to do with Wuap's thoughts about priesthood and prayer than it did with correlation.

However, the BOM and GC should not be considered synonymic with correlation. Correlation is the taking of all the disparate ideas expressed in different places and making them consistent. I think we can say that it is a little inconsistent to say that prayers are always answered and that prayers are not always answered. I agree that both ideas can fit in what is considered correct in this case, though, because it depends on how we define the word answer. I'm not sure correlation has taken it upon them themselves to define that one, nor do I think they will. It's a silly triviality.

My main point is, though, that I think that you are proclaiming a bogeyman that just isn't there, at least not in this instance. I have my own problems with the extent of correlation, but you seem to want to insert correlation as the answer to nearly every problem you perceive in the church.

lol... correlation is just my most recent of pet topics. I probably haven't made more than 25 posts on it. I certainly don't think it's more important than getting windows on the doors in every building possible and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with that problem.

If you want to give a certain answer in church, do it, even if you don't think it's the "right" answer. The Church has yet to issue shock collars that go off with a "wrong" answer.

You don't want to get me started on the topic of shock collars.

I've sat through enough crazy answers in church classes to know that people will generally let you speak, and there are very few things that you can say in church that are going to warrant a sit-down with the bishop. Perhaps explain the "why" to your answer so that others get what you're talking about and don't just roll their eyes the next time they see you with your hand raised. You may be surprised with the result.

People at church don't roll their eyes when I raise my hand, I.J. They love it when I talk. I often have people come up to me in the halls and ask me to say more. I prefer to keep my mouth shut. You're the one rolling your eyes .

I guess it depends on how you are defining kid. If you are saying 12-17, then I agree. If you are saying 4-11, then I agree with Surfah.

Maybe. I kinda think kids fight so hard for freedom as teenagers because they were so overly controlled as kids, though. That's a very big and very different topic, however.....

[wuapinmon]

This is going to come up in a class I'm teaching today on Alejo Carpentier's The Kingdom of This World.

[wuapinmon]

Re-reading this thread, I basically feel the same way now as then, but I don't surrender autonomy to any other thing anymore. I'm still me inside of a different frame.

[Katy Lied]

Re-reading this thread, I basically feel the same way now as then, but I don't surrender autonomy to any other thing anymore. I'm still me inside of a different frame.

Exactly how much smaller is the frame nowadays?

[wuapinmon]

Exactly how much smaller is the frame nowadays?

110 lbs smaller.

[BigPiney]

110 lbs smaller.

Wtg

[Bo Diddley]

110 lbs smaller.

You're not quite the man you used to be.