This will be quick. I wanted to write something up quickly to generate a discussion.
This past Sunday, during a Bishopric meeting, we discussed the financial ability—and possible obligation—of families whose children are attending FSY. The total cost is $150. In some years, the ward covers half for all registrants and, in cases of financial hardship, the remaining $75 as well. One suggestion was that youth should actively participate by earning some or all of the money themselves, on the reasoning that people place higher value on things in which they have “skin in the game.” I had no immediate objection to that idea. In fact, I largely agree with it.
And yet, I walked away unsettled—not by the practicality of the suggestion, but by the deeper assumptions underneath it.
It’s easy to say that work increases appreciation, and there’s plenty of evidence that effort does heighten perceived value. But this also exposes something uncomfortable about us: we are remarkably bad at receiving gifts. When something is unearned, our gratitude often thins out, becomes abstract, or disappears altogether. That raises an important question—not about whether work has value, but about how we actually construct gratitude in the first place.
Scripture seems to press directly against this weakness. In the parable of the ten lepers, all ten are healed, yet only one returns to give thanks. That ratio—90% healed, 10% grateful—feels painfully familiar. It also feels deeply problematic. Jesus doesn’t explain it away; He highlights it. He seems less interested in the miracle itself than in the human inability to respond to grace with recognition and gratitude.
Which makes me wonder: if those ten had been required to do something—perform a task, contribute effort, “earn” their healing—would more of them have returned? Would five or six have come back instead of one? Possibly. But if that’s true, what does it say about us? That gratitude is more reliable when we can point to ourselves as partial cause? That we respond better to transactions than to grace?
This is where the tension sharpens. On one hand, valuing work matters. Effort disciplines us, forms responsibility, and roots experiences more deeply in memory and meaning. On the other hand, the gospel repeatedly insists that the most important gifts—life, mercy, forgiveness, healing—are not wages. They are given. Freely. Often uncomfortably so. Grace, by its very nature, refuses to let us claim it as an extension of our own effort.
So when our doctrinal instincts drift toward framing blessings as something God renders but we claim by virtue of our work, we may be revealing less about divine justice and more about human insecurity. We seem to need contribution not just to appreciate a gift, but to feel entitled to receive it at all. Perhaps requiring “skin in the game” is less about increasing gratitude and more about protecting us from the vulnerability of pure dependence.
Jesus, it seems, is constantly challenging this reflex. He heals first. He forgives first. He gives first. And then He waits—to see who can bear the weight of an unearned gift and still return in gratitude.
The question, then, isn’t whether work has value—it clearly does. The deeper question is whether we are forming people who know how to work, or people who know how to receive grace. Ideally, the gospel asks us to become both—but it refuses to let one substitute for the other.
Discussion Questions
1. Do we value work because it forms us—or because it allows us to feel less indebted?
2. Is gratitude deeper when a gift is costly to receive, or when it is impossible to repay?
Wheat & Tares 
I think there is something between work and grace, and that’s pride. Work is valuable in forming character and building oneself up. But what do you do with the rewards of work, meaning the wages, blessings, money, or praise, etc? Do you buy the huge truck or house because you earned it, or do you get something more modest and use your extra money to help others? Right now, we live in a world with lots of big trucks, fancy cars, and huge houses justified because of hard work. There’s also an attitude sometimes portrayed that if I had to work so hard, you do to get what I have.
Grace, on the other hand, requires a certain amount of humility to accept. Maybe we don’t want it because we won’t give something for nothing to others, and feel guilty if it’s given to us. Still, there is virtually nothing we can do on our own or by ourselves that doesn’t depend on someone else. Even something as simple as making breakfast requires hundreds, if not thousands of people to have had a part in what you are cooking. Maybe they did because of work and wages, but could we do it without them? Accepting their work, even if we buy the ingredients, means we need to accept the grace of it being available.
Money complicates the relationship between work and grace. People work for money, and we buy with it, and we think all things are equal. They’re not. My good wages allow me to buy produce and goods made or harvested by people who make a fraction of what I make. We could call it the economic system but looking at it as individuals buying or selling, there’s grace in their actions because of the inequity in our distant relationship that only money bridges.
So I think being grateful is something we should all strive for because not being that way reeks of privilege.
Maybe instead of worrying about who will be grateful, you should worry about which youth need it most. When you feed people, do you do it for gratitude or to feed his sheep? So, maybe make sure the sheep who are most hungry get fed, even if they don’t act grateful. You may not get thanked, but is that really the point?
And maybe they don’t want to go badly enough to work for it because you have been treating them like they aren’t wanted. And even if they don’t want to go, do they need the chance to learn more about the gospel? We bend over backwards getting people to listen to missionaries, then ask ourselves if some teen will be *grateful* if given a chance to learn more. Priorities in wrong place? Maybe going to ESY will be the difference in them going inactive a year from now.
I could explain about my childhood with inactive parents, or about being too poor, but mostly I should tell you about growing up feeling like I was not even wanted at the church it was such a struggle to even go to. Someone even asking if I had wanted to go would have made a huge difference in feeling like maybe someone cared.
If I may, please let me speak up on behalf of the other nine. Were they really ungrateful? Maybe not. The law required a former leper to go to the priest for a declaration of cleanness — so they were being obedient to the law. And, the Savior of the world told them to go to the priest — so they were being obedient to the Savior. Sure, we can speak well of the one who returned, but I don’t think we should speak ill of the other nine, who were obediently (and perhaps even gratefully) following instructions.
Regarding FSY, the stake and ward budgets can afford it, and people already pay tithing and other offerings. We aren’t supposed to ask or require people to pay for church participation. So I think the budget should pay for all the youth.
Interesting to assume that wealthy families are making their kids pay their FSY dues. I would assume the opposite that the parents simply paid it. So while the parent may have skin in the game, the kid attending does not.
Yet this seems to want poor kids to have skin in the game by paying the due themselves.
No following the logic here.
Anna — thank you for your thoughtful and compassionate response. I’ll admit that when the suggestion was raised, what struck me most was how quickly we moved to explaining why it would be better for the youth to pay for FSY themselves. That reflex is what unsettled me.
I agree with you that the first concern ought to be belonging—building a community where youth feel wanted and included, not evaluated for how much they contribute financially or emotionally before being welcomed. Many teenagers don’t attend FSY because it’s their own idea in the first place. Often, they go because of family expectation, social pressure, or encouragement from leaders. In that context, asking them to “have skin in the game” doesn’t obviously increase meaning; it may just add pressure —or even resentment.
My deeper concern isn’t really about budgets or logistics. It’s about the underlying logic: “It means more if they earn it.” That idea quietly carries a version of the gospel where grace becomes secondary—where gifts are more legitimate when they’re partially justified by effort. But unearned gifts don’t diminish the value of the experience any more than a friend paying for a movie changes the quality of the film. Sometimes a gift simply says, “You belong. You’re wanted.”
That seems especially important for youth who already feel marginal, unsure, or unseen. For them, the message communicated by covering the cost may matter more than the cost itself.
Ji—I really appreciate your reading of the parable of the ten lepers. You’re right: obedience and gratitude aren’t opposites, and the nine may have been faithfully doing exactly what the law—and the Savior—required. That insight corrects an overly simple reading, and I should know better by now than to offer a two-dimensional interpretation of any parable. They almost always have more going on beneath the surface than the version we’re used to hearing.
To clarify my original point:
I wasn’t trying to argue that work has no value, or that effort never deepens meaning. My concern is that this particular reasoning— “it means more if they earn it”—easily becomes a way of reframing the gospel itself, where grace is acknowledged in theory but minimized in practice.
If a child doesn’t want to attend FSY and is pressured into going, I’m not convinced paying for it personally improves the experience. If they do want to go, it’s not obvious that financial contribution qualitatively changes what they receive. And if we followed that logic consistently, we’d have to ask why missions—or any number of other church experiences—aren’t diminished by being funded collectively rather than individually.
A comprehensive Jewish polemic against the theological foundations of Xtianity and Islam. Where was JeZeus throughout the Shoah? Where was Allah throughout the Nakba total defeat disasters of ’48, ’67, & most recently the 12 Day War?
Explain how the local tribal god of Sinai who dwells in the Mishkan Yatzir Ha-Tov/strictly and only within the hearts of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov – upon this Earth, does eternally judge the Monotheistic Universal Gods of Golgotha (place of the skull) and Mecca & Medina who occupy the Heavens – as false Baal Gods of Av Tuma avoda zarah – no different from the Gods worshipped by Par’o and Egypt or the Gods worshipped by the Canaanites.
The Torah’s God is not a distant “universal father” but the local, tribal Elohim of Sinai, who entered history through the brit cut between the pieces with Avraham, promising land and seed to Israel alone. This God judges all nations but resides only in the mishkan (tabernacle) of Jewish hearts committed to tohorah and tzedek (justice). Monotheism’s universalism profanes this faith that pursues justice within the borders of the oath brit lands, by inventing heavenly overlords who demand submission from all humanity, violating the Second Commandment: “You shall have no other gods before Me”, which explicitly condemns the polytheistic undertones of trinitarian Christianity and the absolutist Allah of Islam as echoes of Ba’al worship—gods of storm, fertility, or conquest that promise salvation but deliver tumah.
JeZeus as a Protocols of the Elders of Zion NT blood libel slander, did not know the fundamental distinction which separates Torah common law from Roman Statute Law. Likewise his similar Nathan of Gaza who served as the disciple of Shabbetai Tzvi … commonly known in NT rhetoric propaganda as “the Apostle Paul”. To sanctify the mitzva of shabbat (all Torah commandments apply equally to all chosen Cohen seed of the Avot – including the mitzva of Moshiach) requires making the הבדלה distinction between time-oriented Av commandments from toldot positive & negative commandments which do not require k’vanna; this בינה that discerns like from like מלאכה מן עבודה, separates holy from profane – t’ruma from chol. The imaginary man JeZeus did not “understand” the mitzva of shabbat any more than do Xtians understand the mitzva of Moshiach or Muslims understand the mitzva of Torah prophets; Torah prophets command mussar – T’NaCH does not instruct history because prophesy as a mussar rebuke applies equally straight across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot, no different than Shabbat and Moshiach.
The dedication of the House of Aaron as Moshiach serves as the Av precedent for all other Moshiach dedications thereafter. The precedent for korbanot learns from the rejection of Cain’s korban. A Torah korban exists as a time-oriented commandment which requires the “wisdom” of k’vanna-swearing a Torah oath through שם ומלכות. The term מלכות refers to the king-like leadership direction of the 13 tohor Oral Torah spirits which Moshe Rabbeinu perceived at Horev 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf av definition of all avoda zarah for all generations. The Oral Torah revelation occurred on Yom Kippor wherein HaShem remembered the oaths sworn unto the Avot and annulled the vow to make from Moshe the father for the chosen Cohen people. Just as brit does not translate correctly as covenant, so too and how much more so t’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance for sin. Torah faith does not atone for sin, Yom Kippor makes atonement for a failure to rule the oath sworn lands with righteous judicial common law Sanhedrin justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by bnai brit upon bnai brit. Aaron as the first anointed Moshiach – dedicates through the sanctification of korbanot the righteous pursuit of judicial justice among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot within the borders of Judea.
Matthew genealogy traces the lineage of its Harry Potter through Joseph. Luke’s genealogy traces its lineage through Mary. LOL. Matthew lists 42 generations while Luke lists 77 generations! Matthew begins with Avraham and moves forward while Luke begins with Adam. The final name in Matthew’s genealogy Joseph (husband of Mary). While Luke ends with JeZeus. Matthew follows Solomon’s line; Luke follows Nathan’s line. All gospel Roman forgeries fail to grasp the Torah negative commandment of a “bastard child”.
The gospel of Luke ignores that all Goyim reject to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. No gospel forgery ever once includes the 1st Commandment revelation of HaShem who dwells thereafter only within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the hearts of the Chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov – brit cut between the pieces. Nathan, another descendant of David not tied to the kingship.
Anymore than the gospels has any linkage to the Torah dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach – based upon king David’s failure to judge the Case of Bat Sheva’s husband with justice. Ruling the land/people with righteous judicial justice defines the Torah intent of the mitzva of Moshiach. Luke’s attempt to make its false messiah into an av tuma Universal messiah for all Mankind, violates the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Moshe first anointed the House of Aaron as Moshiach. Aaron stands on the foundation of Elohim acceptance of the sacrifice dedicated by Hevel, despite Cain being born first. This theme duplicated again and again in Yishmael/Yitzak, Esau\Yaacov, Reuven\Yosef, pre-sin of Golden Calf first born of Israel/post Golden Calf tribe of Levi. The Luke/puke contradicts JeZeus’s declaration to the Samaritan woman! Hence the NT compare more to a superman comic book than an actual replacement of the brit chosen Cohen seed of the Avot replaced by a Roman fictional Harry Potter messiah.
The greatest flaw of the gospel forgeries, hands down without any question, their utter replacement theological failure which fails to grasp that all the Torah mitzvot revealed at Sinai apply equally – straight across the board – like shabbat and tohorat Ha-beit for married women – to all generations of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.
Furthermore the JeZeus false messiah failed to differentiate the Avot in Genesis perception of El, Elohim, El Shaddai etc as a God in the Heavens from the revelation of HaShem in the 1st Sinai Commandment wherein the Divine Presence middot revealed to Moshe after the sin of the Golden Calf on Yom Kippur live in this Earth only within the hearts of the Yatzir Ha-Tov Cohen people. When the followers of the Harry Potter false messiah asked their God how to pray he taught them: Our Father who is in Heaven … this fundamentally violates and profanes the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the Spirits of HaShem live within the Tabernacle of the Yatzir Ha-Tov within the bnai brit Cohen hearts.
Tefillah – Kre’a Shma – Hear Israel HaShem Elohynu HaShem Echad. The word One does not refer as the av tuma avoda zara theologies promoted by the NT and Koran false prophet frauds of Universal Monotheism. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment; HaShem sent Moshe to Egypt to judge the Gods of Egypt! Rather the word ONE refers to the oath that a Cohen swears through his tefillen to remember the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein the Avot cut an oath alliance to father the chosen Cohen people. Hence the 3 Divine Names in this one verse have the intention to remember the oaths the Avot swore to father the chosen Cohen seed for all eternity. Furthermore, the name Elohynu judges and separates HaShem from HaShem; acceptance of the Written and Oral Torah revelation לשמה.
The father determines the genealogy of both sons of Aaron and Kings of both Yechuda and Israel. The NT fraud has no concept that once a man acquires title to the O’lam Ha’bah (future born children) of his wife, that even if Zeus himself fathered Hercules that under Torah law Hercules constitutes a bastard. That the beating of JeZeus almost to death and torturing him upon a cross compares to offering a deformed animal on an altar as a Torah sacrifice. תורה לא בשמים – a direct quote from the Book of D’varim which defines the revelation of the First Sinai Commandment for all eternity thereafter. JeZeus depicted as the “Son of God/virgin birth” … a bastard child forever excluded כרת from the seed of the Avot chosen Cohen people.
The brutal murder of fictional Harry Potter JeZeus through judicial corruption and injustice totally the opposite of Moshe dedication of the House of Aaron as Moshiach. The prophet Shmuel first anointed Shaul of the tribe of Binyamin as Moshiach, but his failure to pursue justice – specifically in the mitzva of Amalek (understood as Jewish ערב רב – assimilated Jews who follow foreign cultures & customs who intermarry with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.) Amalek or antisemitism plagues all generations of Jews with Torah curses no different than the plague curses in Egypt.
Superficially Yonah sent to “warn” the king of Assyria. But Torah prophets serve only as the mussar police of Sanhedrin courtroom rulings. The Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Hence for the prophet Yona sent to Assyria his mission replicates that of Moshe in Egypt sent to cause the exiled 10 tribes of Israel to remember the brit oath sworn to the Avot. Assyria conquered shortly after Yonah commanded his mussar to the exiled seed of the 10 Tribes by the Babylonian empire.
Contrasts the Torah’s depth with the superficial, treif distortions peddled by the church—as epitomized in that 1956 Hollywood spectacle, The Ten Commandments, where a bald Yul Brynner as Pharaoh and a chiseled Charlton Heston as Moshe reduce Sinai to a cinematic farce. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai caused Israel to recoil after hearing only the first two dibrot (statements) directly from HaShem’s tohor spirits.
Understanding why the aseret ha-dibrot (the “Ten Statements,” not “Commandments” as the church mistranslates to fit its legalistic idolatry) appear twice. Israel demanded thereafter that Moshe ascend to receive the remainder of the Torah—Written and Oral—lest these tohor middot consume their Yatzir Ha-Raw tuma middot.
The aseret ha-dibrot repeated twice in the Torah, this duplication, it exposes the root of Torah common law; which stands firmly upon bininei avot—the foundational “building fathers” or precedents that generate an expansive edifice of halachah. As enslaved Israel made bricks to build Egyptian treasure cities, the Talmud employs the building block of Hillel’s 7 middot, Akiva’s 10 middot, Yishmael’s 13 middot, and HaGallilee’s 32 middot; every sugya of Gemara stands upon these יסודי logical building blocks.
These are not mere repetitions for emphasis, as Goyim theologians defame the Talmud as the words of Men, far removed from the Word of God! Rather the concept of T’NaCH prophetic Oral Torah mussar middot and Talmudic halachic middot bridge the gap of holiness which elevates holy to most holy commandments. Shabbat serves as an Av precedent for all other wisdom-commandments which require k’vanna wherein Jews in all generations dedicates tohor Oral Torah middot – which the Talmud calls: מלכות. As the Torah has two grades of commandments the T’NaCH & Talmud judicial common law have two grades of middot.
Torah speaks in the language of Man. The kabbalistic term “shekinah” stands upon the Mishkan precedent. Its not the form of the Mishkan and its vessels which defines the revelation of the Torah at Sinai/Horev; anymore than its the 6 days of Creation משל, but rather the introduction of time oriented commandments נמשל. The נמשל that the רוח הקדוש Oral Torah middot of Horev breath life into the Ya’tzir Ha-Tov of the Chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts. Hence the error spelling of the word heart as לבב in the tefillah דאורייתא acceptance of the yoke of the “kingdom of heaven”.
Meaning remembering the oath sworn by the Avot to father the Chosen Cohen people and the acceptance of the Written and Oral Torahs at Sinai and Horev. Herein designates the k’vanna of the time-oriented wisdom commandment known as קריא שמע. As this commandment applies to all generations of Israel so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Jews do not wait for a fabled 2nd coming of JeZeus. “Time” not as literal hours but as opportune wisdom (as in Ecclesiastes 3:1–8’s “a time for every matter”). Thus the repetition of the 10 dibrot serve to define the elevation of time-oriented commandments as the k’vanna to remember the redemption from Egyptian exile – as expressed in the first Sinai t’shuva commandment.
The revelation of the Oral Torah, according to the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva’s פרדס understanding, reveals a dynamic logic variable inductive format, as opposed to the ancient Greek philosophers static rigid syllogism deductive logic. Islam’s sharia mimics toldot without av wisdom, leading to rigid fatawa absent prophetic t’shuva. In essence, the twice-repeated 10 dibrot reveal the Torah’s blueprint for common law: a beniyan av teaching generational renewal, mitzvah classification, and mussar-k’vanna. This stands eternally against the church’s movie myths and Islam’s static codes, affirming Sinai’s wisdom for Israel’s seed alone.
Da fook?
If “it means more if they earn it” is true, why not require youth to come up with the total cost of $150? Why is 50% the optimal number? Or, why not increase the price even more? Make it $500 and then they’ll appreciate it even more. Or conversely, why not ask for just $5? My point here is that we (adults) like to quickly decide (with limited evidence) that “earning it” will make it mean more, and then proscribe a single course of action for everyone. When my daughter last attended FSY my ward similarly paid half while we (the parents) paid the other half. I don’t begrudge that setup, though I also wasn’t told that it would make anything “mean more”. I’m pretty sure that policy was set at the stake level.
To me, this feels more like a practical reality (ward/stake budgets are limited) giving way to a reasonable policy (nearly all members in my stake can afford $75 for FSY) which then gets ascribed a reason (it will mean more) so we can feel satisfied that there’s a plan from heaven rather than just some pragmatism.
A bit off topic, but I find the financing of FSY to be very interesting. The $75 I contribute is barely covering the cost of the t-shirt and food for 5 days. The $75 my ward/stake contributes is barely covering housing for the week (if that). Which means the church itself is covering a large portion of the cost, such as all the wages for the counselors, instructors, activities, etc. Why does the church decide that $150 is the right price? That’s certainly not the full price. Is it perhaps chosen so that wards have to contribute something to the cause (out of their budget that comes from the church anyway) because that way it will “mean more”?
Mosckerr, you are off topic, way long winded, and just showing off how much you think you know. I don’t know about the people who write the posts here, but I find it a bit disrespectful to the people here trying to have a discussion. If you really want to have your say, ask if you can write a guest post, then speak English or if you must show off, then put the word in English too. Otherwise, it just comes across as a three year old screaming, “look at me.” It is actually discourteous to come into a conversation and speak a language nobody else speaks and not bother to translate. So, on behave of the people down voting your long winded off topic bragging, stop it.
In the role of stake financial clerk I’ve printed large checks for facilities used to host stake youth conferences. Based on seeing what gets spent on such events I strongly suspect that the $150 price the church is asking for from local units is already heavily subsidized. I think it might be helpful for members to know that, so add this to the list of reasons why the church should have more financial transparency. Given that apparent subsidy, to me it feels a little pointless to worry too much about who is paying that last bit. One might even ask why the church isn’t paying for everything completely. My guess is that they need that bit of “skin in the game” just so they can get a more accurate count of who is coming for planning purposes. They really don’t care who is paying, they just need someone to be willing to put a few dollars behind that commitment to attend, because they would likely get too many no-shows without it.
I think the mission program is a relevant comparison point here. I remember discussion in my youth about paying for part of one’s mission (which I did) as adding value to the mission experience. I think it did for me. I’m trying to figure out why this feels different to me than a youth conference, and I think it’s that the mission experience is meant to be a sacrifice in a way that FSY really isn’t. The mission puts a person in the situation of the giver. I acknowledge that this is more complex for some, that some don’t cover much if any of the cost of their mission. I’d be curious how those in that situation felt about their missions: did it feel more like a gift received or gift given?
This phrase “skin in the game” has been used a lot lately by GOP politicians who don’t want universal healthcare because the fear is that citizens will “overuse” the system, running to the doctor for trivial things. But what really happens today is much worse. A few years ago I fell in San Francisco and needed stitches. I was so worried about the costs I only half-jokingly suggested going to a vet instead, but we did find a clinic that was still open. There was a guy in the next bed who was in serious physical distress to the point that they insisted he go to the ER and were calling an ambulance. He was screaming “I do not consent! I can’t afford an ambulance! I’ll walk there or call an Uber!” They kept telling him he was in mortal peril, and he said there was no way he could afford an ambulance, and if he died, so be it. So I kind of thought that was where you were going. Actually maybe in a way it is. The conservative argument is that people have to pay their way or they aren’t invested in it. There can be, when lives aren’t on the line anyway, some truth to that.
For example, why did I go to BYU when I had zero interest in going to BYU? Because my parents were paying for my education, and they had basically already paid a lot of it through tithing. BYU then offers tuition at a much lower rate than I could have gotten in PA (where I was from, where all my friends went to school), and they really didn’t have an equivalent choice. When you offer something at such a deep discount (that you discounted because they pre-paid via tithing for decades), you’ve captured your audience. You don’t have to provide a great experience or be attractive to the students. Your real target audience is the parents. That’s probably a little true for FSY also. The parents get to send their kids off to a wholesome activity for a week at a very low cost. It’s certainly low enough that rich parents can make their kids earn it.
But what about families who don’t have $150 lying around? Will their kids benefit from attending FSY? They might feel like a charity case, but they also mostly benefit I imagine from being with their peers and not being excluded.
I do think the concept of skin in the game *can* be valuable, but I also think that when a church is providing an experience, I’m a little suspicious of self-dealing. The LDS church has never been primarily pastoral. It’s often like a country club where you access valuable networking families. And from its own perspective, any activity it puts on is designed to increase commitment to the organization. My own personal perspective is that the FSY experience is probably only worth about $150, regardless the cost.
I appreciate this post because I have been thinking a lot about grace and the nature of gifts, and my thoughts usually revolve around the implications of a the “right way” to receive a gift.
Because isn’t the point of a gift precisely that it is unearned, undeserved, unwarranted? That it does not come with conditions? So, on the one hand, the idea of grace seems precisely contrary to concepts like “skin in the game,”
and yet
And yet, we can recognize as adjectives that a person can be grateful or ungrateful. We understand that there are “right” and “wrong” ways to accept a gift.
So, I know everyone’s been trying to come up with metaphors for the atonement for literally millennia, and the modern LDS parable of the piano lesson from Brad Wilcox is one that I’ve been thinking about. I know a lot of people have misgivings with a lot of stuff Brad Wilcox say and does, and like, even the talk where he did the Parable of the Piano has some things i don’t like, but I think the content itself isn’t too bad: If a parent pays for their kid to have a piano and piano lessons, the kid isn’t doing anything to “earn” the piano or lessons. It’s a free gift. And yet, we recognize that the child who dutifully practices is accepting that gift gratefully, while the one who doesn’t…isn’t so grateful.
IDK, I think this is different than the FSY example. In the Wilcox’s example, he makes it clear that the child practicing the piano doesn’t pay the piano teacher or repay the parent for the piano lessons.
Brad actually uses FSY (actually, its predecessor EFY) as an example in his talk…but the problem of someone having the wrong mindset isn’t because they didn’t pay for it. It’s about whether they are open for change, open for repentance, etc.,
On the subject of FSY, the problem with expecting kids to earn a portion of the cost as a “skin in the game” exercise is that it presumes that youth would otherwise take this Church-sponsored program for granted. I think they have it backwards; it’s the Church that takes its youth for granted, rather than treating them like what they are: adults-in-training who will soon be free to choose whether to stay or leave. The Church needs youth members a lot more than the youth need the Church. The Church can easily absorb the total cost for all who wish to attend, and they should consider themselves lucky that any kids show up at all. The few kids who genuinely enjoy that sort of “rah rah yay church!” experience will no doubt be grateful, and the majority of the others who are more-or-less forced to attend won’t feel too resentful if they don’t have to fork over their minimum-wage earnings for it. And for the sake of low-income families, the last thing they need is another humiliating opportunity to prostrate themselves before an unqualified bishop who may or may not show them mercy based on his arbitrary judgment.
As for the original topic exploring gratitude and grace, I am reminded of an experience from Christmas morning when I was 12. My grandparents happened to be visiting that year, and they gave me a present to open, which turned out to be something I wanted. I thanked them appropriately, but my mom (who was a stickler for good manners, to a fault) was momentarily distracted or not paying attention, and did not hear the words “thank you” come out of my mouth. I was sharply admonished. I attempted to clarify to her that I had indeed said “thank you” to my grandparents, but it was too late; the chastisement had been handed out, and my mom’s perception of the events was the only accurate one in her eyes. I learned then that much of what we understand as “gratitude” is actually performative, and is about upholding appearances more than feeling truly appreciative at the kindness of the giver, in a way that should motivate us to be kind and generous to others as well. This is my takeaway of the parable of the lepers; it didn’t matter that nine hadn’t returned, but they were healed and made whole just the same. What truly mattered was what each of them chose to do with the rest of their newly restored lives.
Thank you ji. I made that exact point about the other nine in a RS lesson a few months ago. I always hated the supposed gratitude lesson and the criticism of the nine, which pretty much contradicted every other lesson I got growing up in a church that emphasised not only obedience, but exact obedience.
Seems to me Quentin has it right that the cost to the stake, units and individuals is to ensure commitment to attend. They probably see it as a pragmatic move. It’s a big chunk to come out of ward or stake budgets however. It seems to me that budgets need to be increased at ward and stake level, so that consistent quality activities can be provided year round, rather than having to skimp on everything else when it’s your stake’s fsy year.
Andrew
What I appreciate about the way you frame the question is that it exposes a subtle but important danger in how this metaphor is sometimes received. If the child’s practice becomes a way to justify the gift—if continued generosity depends on demonstrated proficiency—then the logic quietly shifts. The gift is no longer secure. Grace becomes conditional after the fact.
And this is where things go wrong.
As the biblical narrative moves away from the garden and into the long story of human failure, we repeatedly see the same pattern emerge. Humans cease to function as conduits through which blessing flows and instead begin to build explanations for why it should stop with them. The gift becomes something to protect, to possess, or to use as evidence of worthiness. The flow is dammed.
Translated back into the piano analogy, the problem is not practicing or not practicing. The problem arises when musical proficiency becomes a story about identity or worth—either for the child or the parent. Instead of playing music because it is beautiful and life-giving, the music becomes a metric: proof that the gift was deserved after all.
Grace, then, is not threatened by participation. It is threatened when participation is reinterpreted as justification.
The gift was never at risk.
Only the story we tell about it is.
Justic Pack nicely unpacks how Grace, as a theological concept, is missing the bigger point.
“Too often grace is limited to a theological concept—salvation—when it should be thought of as a grace-full way of life. But in our modern meritocratic world of earning and deserving, we often completely miss the repeated scriptural injunctions that nothing we own is ours and that everything we have is a gift from God. In LDS scripture, the sin isn’t being dependent on others but rather claiming to be independent from God. Not needing help, but pretending to be self-reliant. Given this, how can we return to grace, when so much of our modern identity is tied to independence and self-reliance? Grace means to experience life as a gift, to experience what we have “earned” as something that we have been given. Taking grace seriously would mean a radical rethinking of our modern meritocratic ideals.”
Todd S, (and Andrew), that framing resonates with me. Things quietly morph – curdle, I might say – when we try to protect what is given to us freely instead of being a further conduit in our own god-given way.
If there is “skin in the game,” in the overall grace concept, I would say it is what efforts we put into accepting the gift. We aren’t earning it, we aren’t even justifying it; but it becomes precious to us to the extent we pay attention to it and build upon it.
As far as FSY in particular, and as a parent of teenagers, meh on “skin in the game.” Those buggers (teenagers) can take anything for granted – a car to drive, clothes to wear, etc. – till the cows come home. To try and eke gratitude from them for going to an FSY conference? NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Will many of them not want to go, but then come away having enjoyed it – whether religously or socially, or both – anecdotally, yes. I would very much rather just give them the opportunity to go than try to make them grateful for the chance beforehand.
It reminds me of when I was a kid – my dad wanted me to read a certain book series, but I just didn’t care. He offered me $20 to read the first book, so I took it. And then I was hooked and read the whole series. I could have just as easily not gotten hooked, and still gotten the $20. Would my dad have insisted I still be grateful for that? I don’t think so, instead he would have shrugged his shoulders and said something like “well, it was worth a shot.” Likewise with FSY, IMHO.
Todd,
really like the elaboration here:
I think this is absolutely right. I think this is what Paul was getting at in Romans when he is trying to explain the difference in “wages” for “works” vs faith in Romans Chapter 4:
Romans is really weird and complicated, but the thing that seems clear from this part is Paul is emphasizing that the mentality we typically have with works in a secular sense is that wages are earned from work. So, it’s not a gift but is owed by the employer.
This is the risk in our mentality — assuming that our actions are to “earn” or “deserve” the gift.
I am thinking as well about the parable of the talents. While I understand that a “talent” was a unit of currency, I like thinking about it in terms of our contemporary usage of the term ‘talent.’ In the artist and musician communities I’m a part of, a conversation often comes up about the relationship of talent to practice. Many artists and musicians resent when others think to compliment them with a statement such as, “Wow, you’re so talented! I could never do what you’re doing.”
I get why my musician and artist friends may be annoyed by that. To them, they spend hard work to get to where they are, and anyone could do the same.
but I think we should recognize that we have different gifts — different talents — and the question isn’t necessarily what level of outcome we achieve with it, but the more basic question of whether we accept what has been offered to us and make what we can of it or if we “bury our talents in the ground” out of fear.