posted
I got this mail from my best friend--who is LDS--and it's a great message for all Christians.
THE DART TEST A young lady named Sally, relates an experience she had in a seminary class,given by her teacher, Dr. Smith. She says Dr. Smith was known for his elaborate object lessons.
One particular day, Sally walked into the seminary and knew they were in for a fun day. On the wall was a big target, and on a nearby table were many darts. Dr. Smith told his students to draw a picture of someone that they disliked or someone who had made them angry, and he would allow them to throw darts at the person's picture, if they wished.
Sally's girlfriend drew a picture of a girl who had stolen her boyfriend. Another friend drew a picture of his little brother. Sally drew a picture of a former friend, putting a great deal of detail into her drawing, even drawing pimples on the face. Sally was pleased with the overall effect she had achieved.
The class lined up and began throwing darts. Some of the students threw their darts with such force that their targets were ripped apart. Sally looked forward to her turn, and was filled with disappointment when Dr. Smith, because of time limits, asked the students to return to their seats.
As Sally sat thinking about how angry she was because she didn't have a chance to throw any darts at her target, Dr. Smith began removing the target from the wall. Underneath the Target was a picture of Jesus.
A hush fell over the room as each student viewed the mangled eyes were pierced. Dr. Smith said only these words.....
"In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me." - Matthew 25:40 KJV
[ August 15, 2003, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Three of the students dropped out of seminary and are in intensive psychotherapy to this day.
If Dr. Smith is real, he's sort of a b@st@rd if you really think about it. People do things BECAUSE a teacher tells them to. This lesson says a lot more about these people's willingness to go along with whatever an authority figure says than it does about an object lesson relating to Jesus' teachings.
This is just Milgram's lousy experiments done in a religious setting.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know any background on the man, but I just thought this individual message was cool, that's all. I don't see how doing this could create psychological issues that would require psychotherapy.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...maybe you're right. I mean, it's really not as bad as having people shock each other...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The damage from Milgram comes way before the experiment. People (edit: or people who won't actually kill someone because a guy in a lab coat tells them to) who go in who aren't lying to themselves about whether or not they'd kill someone don't feel much trauma. Don't blame the symptom for the disease.
Same here. These people got a sharp shock because they didn't follow what, if you asked them, they'd say was the most important thing in there lives. They got called on it. If you look in a mirror and don't like what you see, it's not the mirror's fault.
posted
What the teacher did was highly disrespectful to the Lord and to his students. The students are innocent, because they had no reason to know or suspect that one of the authority figures in their lives would pull such a stupid stunt.
This reminds me of the story of the nail in the fence for each sinful act. Its supposed to teach students that sinful acts cause permanent damage to the soul. In reality, Christ makes the fence brand new again, no matter how many nails we hammer in, as long as we repent. We can only pull the nails out, but Christ can make the holes disappear.
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a crappy thing for a teacher to do. *scowl* I'd be ticked. Way to represent the gospel as a source of manipulation and public humiliation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we sure this isn't an urban legend. I'm surprised no one in the seminary class didn't find it odd that their professor was asking them to act out on their anger and hatred toward another person.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, a seminary class occurs at a seminary. Does LDS have classes for high school kids that they refer to as the same?
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes - high school students go to four years of a class. In utah, there are so many students that there is a separate building near the high school and they have "released time" - in other words, its like an elective class. The teachers are full-time seminary teachers.
Outside of Utah, it takes place at 6:00 am at the church building, and then the students go to high school. The teacher is someone local, and that's their calling. They get paid a little bit - about $600 a school year. According to my dad, that's just enough to cover the Friday donuts.
posted
That sheds a little more light on it. I still thinks its strange that nobody seemed to see something coming, but not as strange as when I thought it was an actual seminary.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, you must not understand Psychological Ethics.
Regardless of what the cause for the outcome of the experiment is, people in a position of trust (i.e. the experimentor) should NEVER put people in a position of undue stress (i.e. one they would never encounter in everyday life).
Thus, when people are placed in situations that may cause them emotional stress (i.e. being goaded into cranking up voltages in a implied manner or otherwise), you've caused them harm because they trust the experimentor, and you've violated that trust (really, it becomes a meta-experiment).
This is thing that nick posted is the same way. People follow the instructions of people who are in charge, especially children. Thus, if this really happened, this Dr. Smith guy is a real peice of work. He can make teenagers feel traumatized. Way to go, what an accomplishment to feel proud of.
[ August 15, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Pod ]
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Where allowed (usually in Utah), kids can opt to take a religious class for one period per day. In Utah, it is referred to as released time.
For this class, they go to an entirely separate building, which is built pretty close to an existing high school or junior high, on private property. Mine was right across the street from the highschool.
Several other churches in our area also had kids taking "released time."
In places where released time is not allowed, LDS kids usually go to a seminary class at an LDS chapel close to the school before school starts.
This story really reeks, IMHO. First of all, I'd never, EVER, design something that ended up with a picture of Jesus being shredded. I know it's just a picture, but still.
I don't really believe that it's true. I just can't see a seminary teacher doing it.
I could see him telling them: Okay, draw the picture, and I'll let you throw darts at it.
Then taking one of the pictures, and putting it on the dartboard in front of a picture of Jesus, and then asking the kid if he still wants to throw the dart, and then giving them the "Least of these..." scripture.
I just can't believe that this story really happened. Sorry.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zan is completely right- if I showed up in seminary in High school and had the teacher tell me what this one did I would be pretty suspicious.
I am still at a loss as to what was wrong with the lesson. As Squicky said it was all about pointing out the difference between theoretical beliefs and everyday actions. It seems to have worked quite effectively to that end.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is thing that nick posted is the same way. People follow the instructions of people who are in charge, especially children. Thus, if this really happened, this Dr. Smith guy is a real peice of work. He can make teenagers feel traumatized. Way to go, what an accomplishment to feel proud of.
What if part of the point was that regardless of what authority figures tell you to do you are still responsible for your actions? Also note that the story gives the kids an option to throw darts if they want, he doesn't tell them that they must.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jesus aside, I think the initial message of shredding ANY person that you hate is pretty lame for a minister/teacher to promote. I was horrified by that before I even got to the end of the story.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
The teacher didn't come across the students throwing darts, he said "Okay, everyone think of someone you're upset with, write it down, and throw darts at them."
The student has to make a choice between the defying the (trusted (seminary!)) teacher and doing something slightly squicky. If they completed the assignment as expected, they were publicly humiliated. That's manipulation.
Maybe they weren't suspicious and cynical enough to know not to trust their teacher. If the story is true, I'll bet they are now!
Added: *thinking* You know, even if that was the point - "Trust no one." - the teacher destroyed his effectiveness with those students.
posted
As Jacare pointed out, they didn't have to do it. He said he would allow them to do it if they wished.
The whole thing is distasteful, but I think there's a big difference in allowing them to something if they wish and telling them they have to.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's humorous, ironic, and sad that someone comes on here, trying to make a point (however clumsily) about how hurtful it is to hurt people, even those we hate, and that attacking even those we despise goes straight to the heart of all we hold dear
posted
No, regardless of the wording "he would allow them...if they wished," he still provided the dart board and the darts, and instructed them to draw a picture of something there were angry with or disliked. I think it was clear to the students what they were to do.
(err...that was in response to Zan. And I'm not sure anyone's ripping on Nick - I think we're discussing the validity of the lesson)
posted
So the central question is whether or not the teacher was abusing his position of trust to put them in a situation they did not create on their own - a situation that resulted in public humiliation and an action distateful to themselves and others.
It is an effective urban legend, though. Isn't that the point of urban legends - warning stories?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the central question is whether or not the teacher was abusing his position of trust to put them in a situation they did not create on their own - a situation that resulted in public humiliation and an action distateful to themselves and others.
If it were my lesson then that would have been the central point: sometimes people that you trust tell you to do something which goes against the morals you claim to espouse. You need to have your own inner compass atuned and have the strength of will to refuse to choose what's right especially when other people are pressuring you to do otherwise.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there's another lesson there as well.
What will the students do later in life when they are asked by a person in authority to do something they think is wrong? Maybe this would help them realize that sometimes you have to rely on what you know to be right and not blindly follow your superiors.
posted
Was that the follow-up to the lesson - "You can't trust me - don't completely trust anyone."?
Or was the follow-up the unveiling of a mangled (!) picture of Jesus and a scripture-quote that was garunteed to make the people who had performed it feel like crap?
From Nick's description, learning that people lie at church and church teachers are untrustworthy manipulators looks to be something they'd have to figure out on their own. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Was that the follow-up to the lesson - "You can't trust me - don't completely trust anyone."?
Or was the follow-up the unveiling of a mangled (!) picture of Jesus and a scripture-quote that was garunteed to make the people who had performed it feel like crap?
Education is what you remember a year after the lesson is over.
I have had several teachers both religious and not who have played devil's advocate by leading the students down a primrose path and then letting them discover the error of assuming that authority figures always have your best interest at heart. I didn't feel betrayed by these teachers. I didn't lose my trust in them. On the contrary, their lessons taught me to be a bit more scrupulous in examining my assumptions.
Of course this little e-mail is almost certainly a false anecdote made up for someone to read to classes in church, so the lesson is whatever the hearer decides to take away from it rather than anything the hypothetical teacher might have decided to teach.
edit- zan- chalk up some points for reptilian solidarity. Maybe it is just our sunny, optimistic natures which allow us to see the glass as half full.
In teaching, we are supposed to Build a Relationship of Trust. Why should someone listen to you tell them about the Lord if they don't trust you - especially, if they KNOW they can't trust you?
It might have worked for one lesson, but he's shot his credibility for every lesson after.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. If I had been in that class, I don't think I would have lost my trust in the professor. I hope that I would realize that his methods were intended to teach a valuable lesson.
Of course, that's easy for me to say here on the outside looking in.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... I'm still not convinced that "Trust no one." was the main point of the lesson.
If it wasn't, then the lessoned learned is entirely different from the one that was intended. This is like dream interpretation - it usually reveals more about the interpreter than the dreamer.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Zan. I guess it is all about what makes a given individual like or trust a teacher. This teacher would not have lost his credibility with me with this lesson based on the data available. It all depends on the spin given and the way it is presented. I can see how the lesson could become one of those blatantly manipulative emotional plays one sees in Disney movies and the occasional church lesson as well as nearly all e-mails of this sort.
I am just saying that there exists a margin of doubt where this could have been a great lesson if the proper touch was used.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't like the public humiliation factor. No matter what the individual lesson, you just don't humiliate teenagers in front of their peers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I still don't like the public humiliation factor. No matter what the individual lesson, you just don't humiliate teenagers in front of their peers.
I don't know about that. I think that most teenagers could use a few healthy doses of humiliation. At any rate, there are two reasons I don't think this counts as public humiliation: 1) It sounds like most of the class got up to throw darts. Humiliation isn't all that bad if everyone shares in the same humiliation.
2) The only ones who wouldn't throw darts are the know-it-all goody-two-shoes that everyone hates anyway, and who really cares what they think?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that most teenagers could use a few healthy doses of humiliation.
Oh jacare! For the sake of the universe, do NOT become a gym teacher.
So the difference here is that we disagree whether public humiliation is a positive teaching aid. Since both of us sit at a computer all day, maybe we can get a different opinion.
quote:Oh jacare! For the sake of the universe, do NOT become a gym teacher.
So the difference here is that we disagree whether public humiliation is a positive teaching aid. Since both of us sit at a computer all day, maybe we can get a different opinion.
Come on now Kat, can't you recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment like that?
The difference here is what we think public humiliation consists of. If the whole class is forced to examine their morals like this then it isn't public humiliation in my book. If only one kid had stood up and thrown darts when the teacher ended the lesson then there would be a problem.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I think you're overestimating the humiliation that lesson would have invoked. We're not talking about singling a student out for failing a test or not giving the right answer when called on.
edit : stupid people calling me on the phone expecting me to work
quote: Jacare, were you that know-it-all-goody-two-shoes? If so, we understand. We like you just the way you are.
:vomitsmilie:
Heh, you pegged me. I even went so far as to become seminary class president a couple of times. You can't get much more repulsively goody-two-shoes than that.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I still don't think you can teach a positive lesson by inducing negative feelings, though. It's ... divisive. Shame doesn't pull a group together.
I was thinking of the stoning incident - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What would our opinion of that lesson be if Jesus was the one who brought the woman, told them to do what they felt like, and then pulled the rug out from under them?
If the teacher had come across students doing this, it would have been a great teaching moment, but it doesn't work to artificially create a teaching moment. They are still kids.
quote:There is some discussion going on, but the immediate response was several people saying things like "crappy" and "b@st@rd".
Actually, that was me.
Here's what I think:
1) the story is almost certainly apocryphal. 2) the people sending it around the web are thinking about it at the abstract level -- they "get" the message without having to go through the exercise. So, for them it is effective. 3) Thus, it is cool.
I have no problem with that. It's an interesting story that is instructive as a story.
If it describes an actual pedagogical event, then the teacher is a mean-spirited b@st@rd and no-one should trust him.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Kat said in one of her above posts, "I was thinking of the stoning incident - 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' What would our opinion of that lesson be if Jesus was the one who brought the woman, told them to do what they felt like, and then pulled the rug out from under them?"
I've heard this example used quite a bit lately from a number of people who are all avid Bible readers, especially in relation to the homosexuality issues that have been popping up like crazy.
However, I've read from a number of sources that these are most likely spurious texts. The twelve versus of John 7:53-8:11 are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 (both vellum codices from the fourth century C.E., containing all of the Christian Greek Scriptures and part of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), though they do appear in the sixth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. But they are omitted by MOST of the early versions.
One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel, another group puts it after Luke 21:38.
It's also seems, from my reading of Jesus life and ministry, completely out of character. Jesus was under the Mosaic Law. He respected every aspect of it. Though his death would eventually put an end to the Law Covenant and open the way for the New Covenant - NOT YET. If she had committed adultery it would have been well within the structure of the Law to have her stoned.
Because these passages can be found in no early manuscript before the sixth century and because it seems fairly out of character for someone who respected the Law of his father and the arrangement he was raised in, there has to be at least some question as to whether or not these particular scriptures were inspired.
posted
I don't think this story is apocryphal. When I was in seminary, I heard about it from students who had experienced it themselves. Not once did someone say anything negative about the object lesson.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I'm really trying to say is that if I were Nick I would feel ambushed and like my contributions were unvalued and unwanted. I'm not nearly so concerned with the story as with the way Nick got quashed.
I find it Ironic in the extreme that those shocked at the public humiliation of faceless students in a possibly apocryphal story can't seem to grasp that what they just did was humiliating to someone who was just trying to personally share an insight.
Maybe Nick, with 2000 posts, is comfortable enough to be treated like that... or maybe he's just too much Nick to care what anyone else thinks. I haven't seen enough of him to judge that and, for all I know, I may be aggravating the hell out of him by making a big deal out of this.
I just know that, if I had posted this thread and received this response, I'd probably stay away for a while.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie, I'd never heard that before (I knew those verses were not found in most older manuscripts, but hadn't heard anyone say before that it was out of character). In another thread, I explained why Jesus' handling of this was completely within the tenets of the Jewish Law as I understood it, but I admit I took some liberties and made assumptions about unstated things. However, this wasn't the only time, was it?
I have a Bible handy, but not a concordance, so I won't be able to find too many. But in Mark 2, for instance, the disciples were picking grain or something, which was unlawful to do on the Sabbath, yet Jesus describes that it's not a problem with him (I'll grant he uses Old Testament scripture -- is He then indicating that the understanding of the Law is what's incorrect, not that the Law applies?). Then right afterward (in the book, not in real time) he heals some guy of leprosy, but that healing was also considered working on the Sabbath? And another time I thought he healed a guy of blindness on the Sabbath, and did so by spitting in the dirt to make mud, and spitting in dirt was considered work whereas spitting on a rock wasn't, since you weren't making anything?
I'm not disagreeing with you -- I'm asking for clarification. I can reassess those other things to fit in with your comments, but it seems unnatural to me to do so, and more natural to stick with my pre-stated thoughts on the adultery parable.
Does my question even make sense? I'm pretty tired this morning....
posted
TAK -- one of the things that's been drilled repeatedly into my head (even though I think it was already there) and said many many times to others here at Hatrack is the importance of distinguishing between attacking a point-of-view and attacking a person. I didn't see anyone attacking Nick here, but disagreeing firmly and aggressively (perhaps moreso than might be necessary, but that's a judgement call) with his take on the topic. Maybe I'm just naïve, but I thought we were all still in the clear.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
