Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.2 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
Please join us to discuss "There is 'Nothing to Fear from the Journey'".
-
Well stated. It reminds me of a thought I had during General Conference, maybe during President Packer's talk. I just thought of those members of the Church in places with much stricter governments than ours who have raised righteous children under extremely difficult circumstances. I hope it never comes to that here in the United States, but even if it does, we have been given the tools to do our very best in raising our children and the Lord will help us do it when we do what He's asked us to do. That gives me hope and comfort.
-
I enjoyed this article and the inclusion of thoughts from General Conference. There are many things that will be affected if the amendment does not pass (adoption, the church's tax exempt status, temple marriages...) but it is comforting to know that God is at the helm. I won't deny that all of this turmoil in CA makes me hesitant to consider moving back to my native state. Perhaps I should stay somewhere that won't fall into the ocean ;)
-
This has been on my mind a lot lately. My husband's brother lives in England, and just this past week he and his friend got "married". My husband and I have been talking a lot about how we can teach our daughter that that kind of lifestyle is not ok, but that we still love her uncle, despite his choices. I never thought that I would have to deal with this in such close range of our family. These quotes were great, and I know that no matter what happens we can always turn to the Lord and he will be there for us. Thanks for writing this great article.
-
Thanks, Michelle. Loved what you wrote. I have long felt that we will never be able to shield our children from all those outside influences; we need to help them build strong internal shields of faith and testimony. More often than they hear wrong messages at school, they need to hear right messages at home. If we are exposing them to risks, I can think of at least one good Father who was also willing to expose His children to risks. That in itself isn't necessarily the mark of bad parenting. We have been repeatedly counseled to be "in the world but not of the world." That's the answer for ME. I respect the answers other people get, too, and I watch with interest and awe as you, my friends, make your answers work.
I loved that fact that when the Israelites couldn't stay near a temple, they took the temple with them, everywhere they went. When they couldn't build fort walls, they relied on something higher and stronger. Love this hymn:
"A mighty fortress is our God,
A tower of strength never failing.
A helper mighty is our God
O'er ills of life prevailing.
He overcometh all!
He saveth from the Fall.
His might and power are great.
He all things did create,
And he shall reign forevermore."
That gives me confidence.
Mandy P, because you are determined that it will be so, I bet your daughter will grow up knowing that you can hate the sin and love the sinner.
Sometimes in these discussions I think we underestimate the power of parental influence. If they are "exposed" at school and in other places, they can be covered and warmed at home. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 8th 2008 edited
Well thought out Michelle.
I have a hard time believing though, that very many parents if any, pull their kids out of public school over "fear of what's happening in society". I don't think it's "fear"-- like "oooh, I'm scared. They're talking about 'gay' stuff" I think it's just wanting and demanding control over what their kid's are being taught and a rightful expection of responsibility and accountability on the part of the school. If the only way parents can get that control is to pull them out, then that's what they're going to do.
If, for example, what happened in Massachucettes happened in my kids' school, I can tell you right now, I'd pull them out THAT day. But not out of "fear". What's being taught in those schools is flat out wrong and evil and they aren't giving parents the choice to opt out for their kids, they aren't notifying them. And if they're teaching THAT, then they're probably going to be teaching other similar things. And the subject isn't just going to be brought up when they just happen to be reading a book about gay couples. It's going to come up anytime they can fit it into the classroom discussion because their WHOLE PURPOSE is to indoctrinate and make it seem normal. That happens by frequent repetition and exposure. And the kids will be IN that environment 7 hours a day 5 days a week. That's longer than they're EVER at home with you. The books they're told to read, the movies they might watch, the speakers they bring in for assemblies (remember what happened in Boulder Colorado???) It's "immersion" schooling.
If that Dad had gone into the office, made a complaint and the principal said "You're right-- we should have made sure their was prior notification and yes-- from now on we'll make sure you can opt out" then it would have been an entirely different story. But when the school is essentially (edit to substitute previous wording) thumbing their noses at you and saying they're going to do whatever the heck they want and you just have to live with it, then you're darn tootin' people are going to start pulling their kids out. Is it "reactionary"? Of course it is. But that doesn't make it bad.
If your child went over to a friend's house and you later found out that the parents leave their drugs, paraphanelia and porn laying out all over I'm sure you'd never let your kid go over there again. Why? Because of "fear''? No-- because you don't TRUST the environment to be a safe or healthy one for your kid. You may still let your child play with THEIR child at YOUR house under YOUR supervision though, because you have control there.
I really don't see how it's any different.
I don't think that's "fear"-- it's parents maintaining and/or taking back their control as parents. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 8th 2008 edited
Thank you, Tracy. I've been rolling this around in my head all day and have come to many of the same conclusions. Here are my other thoughts. Somewhat random and some repetitive, but I have promised myself I will go to bed at a decent hour tonight, so I'm not going for total cohesion here.- Title: There is nothing to fear in the journey
I don't really know how to read that. Fear, as in run screaming down the street flailing my arms? Or fear as in great concern over the future?
I'm not doing the former, but if we're not doing the latter, I think we've got our heads in the sand and the scriptures firmly sealed.
I feel the term is used almost like a club in the same way the term "homophobe" is for those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful. I mean, fear is bad, right? Faith is the opposite of fear, right? If you are afraid, you aren't faithful. Etc. But if the scriptures are correct, there is horrendous stuff coming eventually--and it will be brought about by the evil of people. - [Packer] taught some pretty important things about our duty to remain loyal to our country, and respectful to the government, even if it fails us in significant and obvious and damaging ways.
Since this was written with the Pull Your Kids article as, at least, a catalyst, I have to wonder if you are suggesting that pulling your kids out of school is somehow disloyal or respectful? I don't see the connection. - God is in control and we can take great comfort in that fact.
I think that is only likely to bring us comfort if we forgot about that somewhere along the line. If we always recognized that, then the "fear" is not because we think someone else is in control, but because his being "in control" isn't a guarantee of any particular outcome. - "It is my purpose to show that, in troubled times, the Lord has always prepared a safe way ahead."
Let's be really clear about what this Packer quote means. He does NOT mean that when bad stuff happens, God will intervene and make a way for you to escape from it. Bad stuff happens to good people and most of the time God allows that. Yes, he's provided a safe ETERNAL way, but not necessarily a safe EARTHLY one. So you could still have an axe murderer break into your home and do away with the lot of you. That's pretty darn troubling. And God might not save your life.
So, what does that mean with regard to evil in the world? I don't know except to say, "Well, in the END good will win over evil." But since that has always been part of my belief system, it doesn't much change my response to the evil I see in the world. - But I no longer feel that that is necessarily what we absolutely would do, or even what we must do.
Your intent here isn't quite clear, but I assume you mean "pulling the kids out." So, it's fine to say, "If my kindergartner we given regular "diversity training" I would not pull my kids out. What I've been trying to address is two ideas (a) would you EVER pull them out? (b) and when.
Making that determination is at least mildly helpful in keeping you to a standard, as opposed to just letting the standard slip further and further, while you continue to tolerate more and more. - "We sometimes want to just put our children in an armored car,” he said. But then he reminded us that we simply can’t.
Michelle, I mean no disrespect, but the idea that removing kids from PUBLIC SCHOOL would be equated to putting kids in an armored car is, to me, a testament to the stranglehold that the NEA has on Americans. As if the PUBLIC SCHOOL is the "real world"? As if kids who use alternative forms of education never see anyone, never learn anything, never have experiences? As if they live in a bubble with no outside contact? It's much like the argument that kids will never learn to get along with people unless they deal with bullies for 13 years.
Trust me. Being "in the world" is not equivalent to "being in public school." - “We have to help them put on the armor of God.”
Sure. And it's a lot easier to put on the armor when you don't have someone swinging a mace at you 7 hours a day, 180 days a year, starting when you're five. - If you will be faithful, you have nothing to fear from the journey. The Lord will take care of his saints.
Again, what does this mean? It does NOT mean that if you keep the commandments, your children won't be harmed. - It will require every bit of our strength, wisdom, and energy to overcome the obstacles that will confront us. But even that will not be enough. We will learn, as did our pioneer ancestors, that it is only in faith—real faith, whole-souled, tested and tried—that we will find safety and confidence as we walk our own perilous pathways through life.
Sure, great. But do you think Ballard is talking at least somewhat more to adults with testimonies and some level of autonomy, than to five-year-olds who are subordinates? Or do you think that he's saying, "Throw your kids into the pit! Let their faith be tried! Expose them to everything you can think of! It's GOOD for them. They will be heroic as they find safety in the commandments!"? - In some families, parents feel that that keeping their children in public schools is damaging and wrong for their children...I do not believe these kinds of decisions, particularly with regard to school choice, should be made lightly.
This is an absolutely sincere question. Why? I think you know that I think parents, generally, fail pretty miserably in really figuring out how to provide a really great education. But what is the incredible attachment to PUBLIC school?
If public school isn't working for your child--for whatever reason--WHY put up with it? Public school isn't sacred! Why does it even have to be "damaging"? Why can't "inferior" be reason enough to seek elsewhere?
Tracy gave a great example. If your neighbor was a drug addict, would your kids play there? If your neighbor was a great gal, who had a foul mouth, and was taking every form of the Lord's name in vain every other word, would your kids play there? Would they still play there when your children started dropping the f-bomb at home? What if your neighbor always told your kids that Mormons were stupid for refusing to drink and made a point to drink coffee in front of them and tell them how awesome it was? What if your NEIGHBOR got out "Heather Has Two Mommies" or "Jesse's Dress" and read it to your children? Would they still play there?
It utterly baffling to me that most of us would have all SORTS of issues with a neighbor like this, but are still willing to put our kids the the SAME situations for the MAJORITY OF THEIR WAKING HOURS from the time they are FIVE--and believe that is somehow the faithful, reasoned, and patriotic response. - But I also do not they should simply be made as a reactive way to deal with fear of what is happening in our society.
Again, I've got to ask you WHY? OK, except for the "fear" part, which IMO isn't even part of the discussion, (who said they were afraid anyway?), why shouldn't we react? Like I said, I know all the PROactive vs. REactive stuff. But it's really just verbiage. What do they mean?
Proactive: creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has
Reactive: showing a response to a stimulus
The truth is, most of the time we say we're being "proactive" we are really just being reactive with more thought than a knee-jerk or instinctive reaction. But we ARE still reacting. It's more of a subset than it is a different animal altogether.
Take the church's action on Prop 8. Did they think and plan? Yes. But of course they were REACTING to the California legislature. They wouldn't be doing it if it weren't in a response to what has been going on for the past few years.
So, if your school isn't working, why is it unreasonable to REACT by taking your kids out? And why would it be assumed that this would not be a faithful response?
I'm going to go to bed. Forgive me if this post is a lot of blathering. I'll clarify tomorrow if need be. -
I have to go to bed, too, but don't ovedo the juxtaposition of the general topic (we have nothing to fear from the journey) with public school alone. I included that as PART of a larger message.
I tried to make it very clear that we can make faithful choices in many ways. I never said tat pulling kids out of school would not be faithful. Just like you, Alison, my point is to encourage people to think, pray and do what is RIGHT, not just something spurred by fear. I DO think that sometimes humans panic and REact without THINKING when things around us get bad.
See how people buy rice to the point of draining the stores. See how people pull their money out of the markets when stocks go down. See how people sometimes go to extremes with emergency preparedness.
All I am encouraging is a reminded to not REact just from fear. We should do what MAKES SENSE and what is RIGHT, not just out of fear of what is happening in the here and now.
When I use the word REact, I'm talking about not really thinking before acting. Obviously, Alison, that means something different to you. Rational, reasoned, revelation=-driven choice is not what I mean in this context. See my examples above, again. Those are REactions that are based in fear. Prop 8 was not just a reaction, it was a deliberate choice. We are using different words to explain the same thing. Not good, but try to see what I mean instead of imposing your view of the word on what I have said. That will mess up my message and your (and others') ability to undersatnd what I mean.
And if I shouldn't have brought school into it, then apologies. But honestly, I have had too many homeschoolers want to suggest that it's impossible to be righteous and keep your kids in school. That's insanity and completely inappropriate. And I have gotten the sense that some people's wheels are spinning already. "Does prop 8 mean we will all end up homeschooling?" And my answer is, 'not necessarily. We should all do what we feel is right for our families." AND LEAVE SPACE FOR OTHERS TO DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST, EVEN IF WE FEEL IT IS WRONG OR IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Sorry for the caps, but I really feel strongly about that.
It utterly baffling to me that most of us would have all SORTS of issues with a neighbor like this, but are still willing to put our kids the the SAME situations for the MAJORITY OF THEIR WAKING HOURS from the time they are FIVE--and believe that is somehow the faithful, reasoned, and patriotic response.
You make such generalizations about schools that you leave no room for the possibility that in the balance, things may actually be positive. Just because you hate the NEA doesn't mean all schools are possessed to the degree you want to make it all out to be. :)
EVEN IF my child was read ONE BOOK on ONE DAY, or even have some teachings over a course of a unit, that is not the same as having her exposed to this kind of garbage 'for the majority of her waking hours' all day every day. To me, Alison, you are REacting a bit by overgeneralizing and demonizing the system as a whole, hook, line and sinker. There are lots of ways to be religious, faithtful and patriotic. To you, that means bucking the system. But not everyone is going to see things the same. I will say again that I don't disagree that there are problems. And I know there are risks. And probably more people should be more aware of it all. But there is also variation, and there is also room for inspiration and perspectives and specifics that will differ from yours. And yes, there will even maybe be some mistakes.
Welcome to mortality. :)
# Or do you think that he's saying, "Throw your kids into the pit! Let their faith be tried! Expose them to everything you can think of! It's GOOD for them. They will be heroic as they find safety in the commandments!"?
OK. So here we are. This is how you summarize putting kids in public school. How do you expect people to even listen (and you have some good things to say) when you present someone's choices in that way?
And the fact that you want to summarize what I'm saying in that way really makes me want to just walk away. You know my heart, Alison, or at least I hope you do, and if you think that is what I'm trying to say, then I don't know what to say. (This is another example of the way this kind of conversation goes to extremes way too quickly. You MUST consider my thoughts with some measure of benefit of the doubt or you won't be able to see what I'm trying to say and understand what I felt. It for me was inspiration and light and real. I feel as though you keep wanting to distort it and twist it and negate it.) -
And my other comment got eaten. Basically, all of that misses the fact that the post was not meant to be about schooling. That was part of my thought process, but please, please, please, see it for something beyond that, because it IS something beyond that.
No matter what, God is in control. Things are going to get tough and we should expect that. But we can find peace and power in knowing that our covenants will protect us, and God can and will guide us to know what to do for our families.
It really is that simple. :) -
p.s. I will likely be unable to respond for the next few days. Busy busy busy.
-
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 9th 2008 edited
Posted By: mlinfordI have to go to bed, too, but don't ovedo the juxtaposition of the general topic (we have n/othing to fear from the journey) with public school alone. I included that as PART of a larger message.
I know you did, but you began this discussion from the Pull Your Kids thread and referenced the issue multiple times, so that IS what I'm addressing. While there is a larger context and general principle at work, how it APPLIES to the specific that we've been discussing--and that was explicitly mentioned--it central.I never said tat pulling kids out of school would not be faithful.
No, but multiple times you discussed pulling kids out in the context of fear and haste and being overly protective, etc. All things opposing a faithful response.I DO think that sometimes humans panic and REact without THINKING when things around us get bad.
Me, too. The NEA is the master of creating that mode.See how people buy rice to the point of draining the stores. See how people pull their money out of the markets when stocks go down. See how people sometimes go to extremes with emergency preparedness.
But here's my point about the reaction issue. Why is this being deemed bad across the board? Can't you see that it might actually be SMART to react in these exact ways (except for being "extreme"--which by definition is going too far)? If rice is in short supply, why is it a bad idea to get some? If stocks are plummeting, why is it bad to sell before they bottom out?When I use the word REact, I'm talking about not really thinking before acting....Rational, reasoned, revelation=-driven choice is not what I mean in this context...Not good, but try to see what I mean instead of imposing your view of the word on what I have said.
OK, that makes more sense of it. But Michelle, the word "react" isn't defined the way you're using it in any context I've heard (or in my dictionary), so you can expect others to apply standard usage, right? So if you said "react without thinking" I'd have no issue with it. Except that, in the context of public schools, I didn't suggest that anyone take their kids out without thinking--but I'm certain most people leave their kids IN without thinking. So why not label that reactionary?And if I shouldn't have brought school into it, then apologies. But honestly, I have had too many homeschoolers want to suggest that it's impossible to be righteous and keep your kids in school. That's insanity and completely inappropriate.
I don't mind that you brought it in, because from what I could tell the Pull article was the catalyst for this one. But if you're refuting the "insanity" you listed, be specific about your concerns about it. As far as I can tell this article didn't really address homeschooling radicals at all, but rather those who might now choose to do so our of "fear."AND LEAVE SPACE FOR OTHERS TO DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS BEST, EVEN IF WE FEEL IT IS WRONG OR IF WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. Sorry for the caps, but I really feel strongly about that.
No problem, but why do you seem to feel that my position does not leave room for it? Or if not my position, the following discussion? Perhaps that is the part that is confusing to me.
It utterly baffling to me that most of us would have all SORTS of issues with a neighbor like this, but are still willing to put our kids the the SAME situations for the MAJORITY OF THEIR WAKING HOURS from the time they are FIVE--and believe that is somehow the faithful, reasoned, and patriotic response.You make such generalizations about schools that you leave no room for the possibility that in the balance, things may actually be positive.
Honestly, I don't know how you can possibly say that, when my kids GO to school. There are lots of schools I'd be happy to have my kids attend, at least a bit of the time. There are also some schools we wouldn't go near and, unfortunately, I think that number is increasing every year.
Just because you hate the NEA doesn't mean all schools are possessed to the degree you want to make it all out to be. :)
What degree do I "want to make them out to be"?EVEN IF my child was read ONE BOOK on ONE DAY, or even have some teachings over a course of a unit, that is not the same as having her exposed to this kind of garbage 'for the majority of her waking hours' all day every day.
Michelle, when your kids go to the neighbors house and the mom is cursing a blue streak, it's pretty likely that she stops for a breath. It's likely the influence isn't a consistent pressure and volume during the entire visit.
If (and I did not assume an answer for you or anyone else) you would not let a child go to play at a neighbor's home because they had engaged in the above behaviors, it is strikingly inconsistent to send them to a school that does the same. Why do schools get such a pass? Why do we accommodate--and, in fact, DEFEND--SO MUCH that we would not put up with in other venues?
The general answer is that "we have to" or "it's the law" or "we have no choice." And that's absolute bunk.To me, Alison, you are REacting a bit by overgeneralizing and demonizing the system as a whole, hook, line and sinker.
Spot on. Obviously I'm not demonizing every school, or my kids wouldn't ever go. But, yes, the system itself is rife with corruption and obviously vulnerable to moral decline. The system overall is not good, nor is it sound--not to mention a huge waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. (What did that board member say? She needed $30,000 per year to educate a child in elementary school? And even that wouldn't be enough?)There are lots of ways to be religious, faithtful and patriotic. To you, that means bucking the system. But not everyone is going to see things the same.
I'm not asking you to feel the same way. I'm asking you to identify how your quotes fit into the context of the discussion. You seemed to indicate that the way to be loyal and patriotic was to stay in the schools. I asked specifically about that.
FWIW, I don't see "bucking the system" as the way to be "religious, faithful, and patriotic." I don't even think of myself as "bucking the system."
My children's education has NOTHING to do with the government, supporting a union, providing jobs to teachers or administrators, helping the disadvantaged, mainstreaming the challenged, loyalty to country, or anything of the sort. It is SOLELY about giving them the best education possible. Period. If other stuff happens in the course of educating them, it is peripherally and serendipitous. THE GOAl of their education is to give them the best education we can manage.
FWIW, that is NOT the main goal of the unions or even most of the schools.But there is also variation, and there is also room for inspiration and perspectives and specifics that will differ from yours.
Of course there is room for inspiration. No one said otherwise. But what is the "room" for a different perspective from mine? My perspective is that parents should carefully set the standard for their children and then work to meet it--rather than allowing some ridiculous notion that the NEA or the school board knows best for your child be the great determiner. My perspective is that if your school isn't working for your child (academically, emotionally, morally...) that you find something that DOES work for them. And you don't make excuses for staying put when it is NOT working--just because the bus drives down your street and "everybody" goes there and other things might keep you from watching Oprah.
What is the reasonable variation from that position?
# Or do you think that he's saying, "Throw your kids into the pit! Let their faith be tried! Expose them to everything you can think of! It's GOOD for them. They will be heroic as they find safety in the commandments!"?OK. So here we are. This is how you summarize putting kids in public school. How do you expect people to even listen (and you have some good things to say) when you present someone's choices in that way?
I didn't. You quoted Elder Ballard saying:The obstacles that will confront us. But even that will not be enough. We will learn, as did our pioneer ancestors, that it is only in faith—real faith, whole-souled, tested and tried—that we will find safety and confidence as we walk our own perilous pathways through life.
In the context of schools, this sounds as if you believe that they need to be IN PUBLIC SCHOOL so that they can be art of this heroic effort. They can only have REAL FAITH, if they are "tested and tried" in public school.
I have said repeatedly that I didn't call for a mass exodus from schools--since, as you know, I haven't done it myself--but for parent to DETERMINE what their standard is and how much decline they will accept in their schools. I asked them to be "strong and immovable" in the standard they determine and NOT to let the school standard push their own lower and lower at will.
If parents are unwilling to remove their children from public schools, they will end up throwing them in "the pit" if they are around long enough--because a number of public schools in the country are there already, the number is growing, and the influence is speading. That (my quote above) is the way I summarize the idea that there is no limit to what schools can do, we will still support them in some misplaced notion of patriotism, staying "in the world," or having our children be part of a heroic stand in the last days.
I think there's a big difference between fighting the good fight, and sending out kids to fight it while we sit home by the fire. I don't much go for the notion of sending my kids to war when they are still kids. Even then, I think our personal barometer for what we tolerate in the neighborhood is probably a pretty good one for schools as well. Schools should not have some special dispensation for mucking up our kids lives and minds. They aren't a special class. They aren't holy ground.
Michelle, I understand that this is an overall principle you were discussing, and I don't disagree with the ideas. My problem is that it was in the context of the particular issue we've been discussing I think it has many misleading ramifications. To me it's like sitting down with our soldiers and teaching them ONLY to turn the other cheek. -
But here's my point about the reaction issue. Why is this being deemed bad across the board?
It's not, at least not from me :). There is definitely a tension in what I am trying to talk about. I obviously should have been more explicit in my thoughts, though. Sorry. Hard sometimes to capture impressions in words.The general answer is that "we have to" or "it's the law" or "we have no choice." And that's absolute bunk.
OK, this is helping me see that we are talking past each other a bit. I have never come close to suggesting anything like this. I really think we see things probably more the same than we think in this regard.
To clarify a bit, though with some responses.As far as I can tell this article didn't really address homeschooling radicals at all, but rather those who might now choose to do so our of "fear."
This article ends up trying to share my very personal thoughts as I have thought about what I would do if I lived in CA or in MA. And there has been a part of me for a while that just thought, "I would homeschool" because I thought it wouldn't make sense to do anything else. And I had a quiet but clear impression that helped ME feel that the issue of protecting my kids would not be centered on our school choice.
As I wrote, I obviously brought in some of my thoughts from the other discussion and it may have gotten hard to pinpoint my point. *I* personally felt fear with this issue. I felt sick watching that video. I wept as I thought of the impact this whole thing can have on children. And then there was this quiet sense that it would still be ok.
I have NO idea what my *specific* choice would be if I lived in CA and MA. But some of my point is that I would not make my whole decision based on the social environment. I wouldn't not put them in school *just because* of this one issue. I would look at all the factors -- all that you advocate, and all that you have talked about.
If no one else has ever thought of pulling their kids out of school JUST BECAUSE of fear of the social issues, then this element of the article may end up being just for me.
I think there is LOTS more application to it, though, than just the school issue. I think Elder Ballard's comments are general in nature. I think Pres. Packer's talk was profound on many levels, particularly with how messy, even disappointing, our politics are in many ways.
Don't miss that general core point just because my personal impression came in the context of my pondering about a specific issue about schools and such and what I might do.In the context of schools, this sounds as if you believe that they need to be IN PUBLIC SCHOOL so that they can be art of this heroic effort. They can only have REAL FAITH, if they are "tested and tried" in public school.
But I never said such a thing, so don't make my words more divisive or more definitive than they are on this point. I have tried to make it very clear in my post and in my comments that I am not saying I think public school is The Right Choice, or the more righteous one.
On the other hand, I don't believe those who do make this choice of public schools should be criticized for so doing -- even if the above is one of their reasons. That was another undercurrent of my post. There is simply no one right way and one clear line about how much to expose our kids to. We simply can't protect them from everything. Again, don't misunderstand my thoughts as saying that they MUST be in public school to learn how to deal with opposition. But on the flip side, I don't think this is completely an unreasonable concept, either. But I totally understand your points, and I really don't disagree with the importance of parents making informed choices. But just don't assume that parents who 'keep their kids in such an environment' haven't done that, even if you don't understand why they do, or if it seems inconsistent to you.
I still think it's different to isolate one house where you know the influence is negative net-net, and having kids go to school where there is a myriad of influences and the net is positive. It's just not the same thing.
I worry about my kids and what they are exposed to. I think about it a lot. But they also have a LOT of good friends. They have good teachers who believe in true and good principles, and teach them. We have changed schools to a really awesome accelerated program. And I feel that, net-net, EVEN THOUGH there are negatives, that this is a good choice for my kids. I don't think the opposition they face is all bad. God sent us to learn by our own experience, and I think if I have looked at the whole picture and think that it's an overall positive, then I am willing to let them have some negative influences here and there. Does that make me a bad parent? I don't believe so. God Himself, the Perfect Parent, sent us to experience and learn from opposition. I'm not saying that should be the ONLY reason to do public school, or the justification for not being proactive if other elements of schooling really aren't working. But that shouldn't be dismissed as wrong to talk consider when weighing pros and cons.
So, to sum up:Why do schools get such a pass? Why do we accommodate--and, in fact, DEFEND--SO MUCH that we would not put up with in other venues?
Perhaps it's because there are simply more variables and more influences and more factors and more people and more dynamics than you would have in a limited situation like ONE friend in ONE house as a captive audience and a one-on-one situation. Sometimes it may be because of laziness or just going with the crowd, I realize that. But that isn't always true. I don't want to be misunderstood at all as thinking that schools are holy ground. But I do think there are more factors that come into play and it's not just as clear-cut in my mind as you have sometimes made it out to be.
Hope that makes sense.
So, for the record, I actually agree with:My perspective is that parents should carefully set the standard for their children and then work to meet it--rather than allowing some ridiculous notion that the NEA or the school board knows best for your child be the great determiner. My perspective is that if your school isn't working for your child (academically, emotionally, morally...) that you find something that DOES work for them. And you don't make excuses for staying put when it is NOT working--just because the bus drives down your street and "everybody" goes there and other things might keep you from watching Oprah.
But good grief, I hardly know a woman with kids in school who wastes her time in useless pursuits. Seriously. We can be doing God's work even if we aren't keeping our kids home all day. :) (Even as I write that, it tugs at my heart, because I miss my kids during the day. But I still, for now, think that what we are doing is working. And we will continue to evaluate as we move forward. I use my example to try to feel some recognition in your mindset for women like me. I know you get lame comments, but not everyone will see things or do things as you. And that may not all be as terrible as sometimes I think you make it out to be.)
But hey, if you feel inspired to keep pounding your pulpit, don't let me stop you. :)
As for the patriotism issue, I am having a hard time figuring out how to explain what I meant without being misunderstood, so at this point, I'm going to keep my thoughts simple.
I don't think public school = patriotism, so don't make that leap because that is not what I meant.
I think negativism can sometimes violate patriotism, and sometimes, to be honest, I feel negativism in your comments. But that is likely more a matter of difference of style and limitations of this medium. And I know that your efforts are founded in passion what patriotism and wisdom and parental responsibility and all of that mean to you, so I think we need to just accept that we may approach some things things differently and communicate differently sometimes. And that's ok.
I do think there is much to be pondered in Pres. Packer's talk, though, because I think we will continue to see governments fail us, and I think it is worth considering what kind of counsel he might be giving us as Saints. I have yet to wrap my mind around it, but I do feel that his message is of supreme importance given all that is going on politically and how difficult and disappointing much of it is. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 12th 2008
Posted By: AlisonMooreSmithBut here's my point about the reaction issue. Why is this being deemed bad across the board?
Posted By: mlinfordIt's not, at least not from me :).
I'm kind of lost on this. Did you ever use the term "reaction" in any way except a negative way or as something we shouldn't do? That is the way I read it. If I misinterpreted, I apologize.Posted By: AlisonMooreSmithThe general answer is that "we have to" or "it's the law" or "we have no choice." And that's absolute bunk.
Posted By: mlinfordI have never come close to suggesting anything like this.
This simply IS the attitude of the general public. Public school IS the "accepted way" to school and few look at alternatives. And that IS the reason the parents put up with more and more crap every year. They don't like it. They fuss and fume. And then they accept it.
I think the moral decline in our schools is a DIRECT result of the parents, individually, being virtually at the mercy of the unions and boards. And they are in that position because they do not see alternatives as being viable. Who has the power? NOT the parents. And they SHOULD have the power, since they are the customers.And I had a quiet but clear impression that helped ME feel that the issue of protecting my kids would not be centered on our school choice.
Honestly, though, we aren't discussing your particular situation. I don't mean that to be offensive in any way. I mean that as a "Laban exception" issue. Just because Nephi was commanded to slay Laban, doesn't mean that his directive is instructional to US. So, in the context of "how do you deal with moral decline in schools" what we're talking about is an LDS approach and common sense and reason--NOT specific inspiration to a specific family.
Mormons always have this trump card they like to draw out: personal revelation. "Well, it was confirmed to me." You can't argue with revelation, right? End of discussion. But personal revelation, as we all know, is very personal and NEVER relates to the group. It can't, because it can never be confirmed from the outside! So, of course, if you say that protecting your children is not part of your school choice decision, I can only accept your statement. But as for whether that is a generally sound way to decide how to educate your children, I would say it's not at all. And that is what my post was about--general decision making, not YOUR decision making.But some of my point is that I would not make my whole decision based on the social environment. I wouldn't not put them in school *just because* of this one issue. I would look at all the factors -- all that you advocate, and all that you have talked about.
This (again, speaking generally, not specifically to you) doesn't make sense to me. Honestly. Why put up with a crappy social environment? Why put up with a lousy academic environment? Why have a mediocre situation in ANY respect? When there are SO MANY GREAT ALTERNATIVES? I have to think it's because the adults have no idea what the alternatives are OR they don't want to be bothered with accessing them.
In part, this idea makes me crazy because the kids have little choice. I know *I* would rarely spend THAT MUCH TIME in a lousy situation. I'd find something better for myself--and most adults do, too! But kids "have to go to school" no matter what parts of it are damaging.If no one else has ever thought of pulling their kids out of school JUST BECAUSE of fear of the social issues, then this element of the article may end up being just for me.
Again, I don't understand the use of the term "fear." But that aside, why should kids be in a bad social situation 7 hours a day, 180 days a year?
Seriously, if you went to a PARTY and the other guests insisted on trying to convert you to the "homosexual agenda" (or everyone got screaming drunk or smoked pot or...) on a regular basis, would you keep partying with those same people EVERY DAY? In other words, would YOU pull YOURSELF out of an unpleasant social situation JUST BECAUSE it didn't fit your social standard? Why not do the same for our kids?I think there is LOTS more application to it, though, than just the school issue. I think Elder Ballard's comments are general in nature. I think Pres. Packer's talk was profound on many levels, particularly with how messy, even disappointing, our politics are in many ways.
I do as well and am not dismissing those applications. I'm just trying to figure out how you think the quotes fit WITH the school issue, because in general I don't see the connection.I have tried to make it very clear in my post and in my comments that I am not saying I think public school is The Right Choice, or the more righteous one.
OK, so what was the point of, for example, the Packer quote, within the context of schools?On the other hand, I don't believe those who do make this choice of public schools should be criticized for so doing
Michelle, two of my kids ARE in public school. Did you miss that? And I think we might agree that there are SOME public schools that are absolutely horrendous--and NO child should be in them. Given that, I disagree that the parents of those students shouldn't be getting a good whack on the head for putting their children in such awful circumstances day after day, year after year.
And that is why I'm asking parents to clue in on how bad their schools really are, rather than just continue to send them off on the bus without much thought.There is simply no one right way and one clear line about how much to expose our kids to. We simply can't protect them from everything.
You keep bringing it back to the extreme, but, as I've said, no one has suggested protecting kids from everything. As you know, I didn't suggest there was " one clear line about how much to expose our kids to." I asked each parent to determine what they would tolerate so that the line doesn't keep moving down--at the will of outside sources (the NEA, the school board, the teachers, etc.)
Parents should decide: When is enough, enough? When will we draw the line? How much are LDS parents willing to allow in the name of the convenience of “free” government education?Again, don't misunderstand my thoughts as saying that they MUST be in public school to learn how to deal with opposition. But on the flip side, I don't think this is completely an unreasonable concept, either.
Did I read that correctly that you think it's reasonable (or, at least, "not unreasonable") to say that children MUST be in public school to learn to deal with opposition?But good grief, I hardly know a woman with kids in school who wastes her time in useless pursuits. Seriously.
Well, maybe you can tell me where Dr. Phil, Oprah, and the like get their millions and millions of viewers! Or how the scrapbooking companies are making so much money. Or how all those Mah Jongg ande Bunko groups get started.
If I could have a quarter for every woman who told me she'd never homeschool because she couldn't give up her "me time"... I could run a public school just like the NEA wants!
-
I've been reading this for days because I live in California. I'm just holding my breath about the whole thing and hope it passes.
mlinford lots of times you say "talking past each other" but that seems you just say that when you dont like what someone says. Or I just dont get it.
We don't home school and don't think I could do it. But I think you hvae to start thinking about how bad the schools are. They are getting worse and you have to think about what that does to your kids. It __does__ do things to your kids. I think its true that if you wont let other people expose something to your kids then if you let the school do it you're just being to lazy to do something else.
We are thinking about private schools or open charter schools that have more parent say in what goes on. We'd have to sacrifice to do it, but your kids only get one chance at being a kid and it shouldn't be ruined because parents don't want the trouble of doing something harder. I'll do the harder thing. -
I am feeling pretty baffled at the responses to what I have written and how I feel what I meant keeps getting misunderstood.
I agree parents should care about their kids, the moral, social, educational, etc. forces in their lives, and that parents should make active and proactive decisions for the sake of their children's lives.
For the record, I don't think it's a requirement for children to be in public school to reach their eternal potential. (!!!)
I can't understand why I'm being equated with Nephi killing Laban, or that I'm being accused of being so extreme.
How 'bout this? Don't try to force all of my post to apply to the school situation. In fact, IGNORE what I said about the school situation if that would help. Try reading it just in a general way. Ponder the quotes in light of our difficult days in general. This post was supposed to be a LOT bigger than schools.
I bore my testimony today about the GENERAL principle that as we trust in the Lord, we don't have to fear, with this very post in mind. That doesn't mean it won't be hard, but the KEY to protecting our children (and ourselves) IN GENERAL, is to teach them the gospel and to teach them to trust in God and put on the armor of God. The key to moving forward is to trust God. He is in charge of the church, and He can guide us all along the way in our individual lives as the social, political, moral forces (and every other force) around us will continue to unravel. Because we KNOW we will.
I don't see how that could be equated with being extreme or thinking I'm an exception. I'm NOT saying we turn a blind eye to things that affect our children. !!!!!! STILL, if prop 8 fails, the work of God will move forward. The work of God "will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent" (Joseph Smith quoted by Pres. Packer). We will continue to raise and teach our families and God will bless us as we cling to our covenants and the doctrines of the gospel.
In my testimony, I basically shared everything in this post EXCEPT the school thing, and I bet people don't think that I'm extreme, or think that I think I'm an exception, or that I am so hard to understand. If you want to understand more of the core of what I meant, JUST IGNORE THE FACT THAT I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SCHOOLS. Don't try to apply anything I said to schools. Just apply it to our hard days in these last days. Read the first three comments. They understood the heart of what I was getting at. I think I'm regretting saying anything about schools now.
I DO think we are talking past each other, and I am not sure it's going to help for me to keep trying to explain my thoughts. Maybe this helps? I'm sorry that I created so much confusion here. That was certainly not my intention. -
We are thinking about private schools or open charter schools that have more parent say in what goes on.
FWIW, don't assume that this will be the case. My friend in CA chose a private school, and they were all the MORE controlling because there were people lined up to pay for that school. My friend was basically told, "If you don't like the curriculum, GET OUT." She had NO say in what happened, and could not opt her daughter out of the sex ed they did. Imagine how much worse that could be if prop 8 doesn't pass.
So what is a parent to do? I think we continue to prayerfully seek guidance about what to do, and cling to the prophets' counsel and teach our children the gospel by following what they have said to do. I firmly believe that as we do this, we can know what to do with regards to specific decisions about schools or whatever else we might be concerned about. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008 edited
I'm NOT saying we turn a blind eye to things that affect our children. !!!!!! STILL, if prop 8 fails, the work of God will move forward. The work of God "will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent"
Michelle, I think this quote is an example of why you're being misunderstood. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you at ALL on the idea that no matter what happens with prop 8, that the work of God will move forward and so there's nothing to fear. I'm confidant that eveyone is in 100% agreeance on that point. (Is "agreeance" a word?)
I think the communication is breaking down because you're using that truth, within the context of a discussion about school choice, and the two don't have anything to do with each other. I mean, yes-- parents who have faith in the Lord and trust in his care and in the guidance of prophets shouldn't "fear" no matter WHAT happens in the schools. The work of God will go forth no matter what choice parents make about schools, no matter who wins the election, no matter how soon we're able to come home from Iraq, no matter what happens in the economy, whether or not Global Warming is caused by humans, and no matter how many murders are committed. Even if every public school, private school and homeschool was invaded by space aliens
, the work of God would STILL go forward.
But I think where the communication gap comes, is when you use that truth that we all agree with, as though it's a reason for people not to pull their kids out of school. From your frustration with all the misunderstanding, I assume that that's NOT what you're trying to say. But that's what it sounds like.
When people say something like "If prop 8 fails that's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to let my kids go to public school if they're going to push the homosexual agenda on my kids. That's crossing the line" and you say "I'm NOT saying we turn a blind eye to things that affect our children. STILL, if prop 8 fails, the work of God will move forward" -- a "you don't need to fear." kind of thing, it's sounds like your saying that if someone pulls their kid out of school because they vehemently disagree with a practice, a protocol, a curriculum, a teaching method, or whatever that it ALSO means they don't trust that the work of God will move forward, or that they are reacting out of an unhealthy, unreasonable fear instead of moving forward with faith.
But no said anything about God's plan unraveling, no one said anything about losing faith or trust in God. They just said that they're really concerned with what's happening in the schools and will pull their kids out if it gets too bad. And Alison's point was -- What's "too" bad? How much "badness" should parents put up with before they'll consider pulling them out and using an alternative? And it's a good question. And I think you understand what she's saying. But when you respond, with the above quote, it sounds like you're saying that those who pull their kids out of school don't have the faith that God's work is still moving forward and that their caving in to fear and are merely "reacting" (which in the context of your comments meant "overreacting without really thinking") Like, "You're going to pull your kid out of school over prop 8? Don't you know that God's work will still move forward?" And everyone else is thinking "Of COURSE I know that God's work will still move forward. But what does that have to do with whether or not I take my kid out of public school? Taking my kid out of school doesn't mean I don't trust God's plan, it only means I don't trust the school."
Do you see what I mean? Again-- from your frustration at the misunderstanding, I don't think you mean what people are interpreting from your comments. But I think the problem is coming from the combination of thoughts-- pulling kids out of school and don't fear, God's work will go forward. When you put the two thoughts together as though they were intrinsically linked, then it comes across as if pulling kids out of school means you don't trust God's plan WILL go forward. And I don't think the rest of us get the connection, because we see them as two different subjects. -
Dude.
I'm a newcomer here (I've been stalking for a few months, though), but I'd like to put in a few words.
We had a discussion about Prop 8 itself over at my little crazy blog, and one woman pointed out that sometimes we can't control what our kids learn in schools. She had a valid point. My children are going to hear about sex on the playground, they are going to learn about prejudice from teachers (probably accidentally, though), and they are going to hear about abuse/war/drugs, etc. and I probably won't know about it unless they tell me. Putting them in a private school won't change this; putting them in a Charter school won't change this. If I choose to send my children to ANY type of schooling outside of my home, they are going to be faced with TOUGH, TOUGH choices and problems.
Some parents combat this by homeschooling. That's fine. I know people who homeschool for better reasons, though, such as just wanting their kids to have a good education. I mean, isn't that what school choice should be about?? Education?
The Prop 8 stuff is scary, yes. But some parents do not have the option to pull their kids out of public school because gay marriage might be taught. The fact that the Parker family did not have a say was scary/sad/frustrating/etc. but if that had been MY Family, I would have then taken my kids aside, and used it as a powerful teaching lesson:
"Hey, kids, remember that Plan of Salvation? Well, SSM won't work, etc. etc. we don't believe in SSM, but don't ever, ever, ever be rude, say bad things, bash, etc. and so forth."
Because I wouldn't have the option of pulling my kids out of school. We can't afford private school. The Charter schools are STILL public. Homeschooling would not work for us (because I would probably go insane). So what am I supposed to do? Freak out and pull them out just because I'm scared? Regardless of implications, results, etc?
I think MLinford's post was NOT about how pulling kids out of school is WRONG. I think she was just pointing out that perhaps we should be careful about knee-jerk reactions to things just because we're scared. The Spirit of fear causes people to act irrationally and because of it, bad things happen. I also wonder what would happen to our children if they are forced to change from public to private or public to home or both, etc. and how would they react to OUR fear?
Back in 1929, the only reason we were plunged into a national depression (okay one of the main reasons) was because people FREAKED OUT. They demanded all of their money from the bank; the banks didn't have the money (they never do, the whole point is loans, etc.), and had people just acted rationally and calmly, it would not have been so bad.
See, here's the thing: I would much rather have my children learn how to stand up to things that are wrong than to run away from it. Perhaps homeschooling them would be one way to "stand up" to something. Maybe! I'm not saying it's a wrong choice! But if it's done out of FEAR rather than PRAYER, than what is that teaching my child? No matter what happens in this life, they will be faced with major, major dillemmas (WAAAAAAAAY bigger than SSM), but I trust that the future generation will be stronger than my generation (we've already been told they are!); I will trust that by teaching them to trust in Prophets, the Scriptures, and the Holy Ghost, they will be equipped to face anything, regardless of where they end up getting their education.
Even if they defy their father and go to the U of U! (collective gasp from Cheryl's family) ;) -
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/first-graders-taken-san-francisco/story.aspx?guid={BE66F84A-F38F-4858-9A7B-DF325F3AC9A0}&dist=hppr
ok, read this article... any thoughts? (I posted it on both threads about HS/and prop 8)
Do we have reason to fear yet?? -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
Cheryl, I think everyone agrees with that.
But there's a difference between hearing something on the playground from other kids, and having something being taught as truth by teachers who are trying to indoctrinate them.So what am I supposed to do? Freak out and pull them out just because I'm scared?
But Cheryl, no one said anything about "freaking out" and pulling kids out because they are scared. I think that's an unfair characterization of what anyone has said here. In fact, it's one of the things that people took issue with in Michelle's comments. The idea that if someone takes their kids out of school because they disagree with something being taught means that they've "freaked out" and took their kids out of school as a "knee-jerk", fearful, unthinking, irrational overreaction, regardless of the implications or results, is unfair. It implies stupid, irrational fear on the part of parents who decide to do so. -
Hi, Cheryl and CamBendy. Welcome. Just wanted to throw that in.
-
davidson-
Hey, thanks!
facethemusic-
Ah! But there's the flip-side; Michelle is being told that NOT pulling her kids out of school (if she lived in MA) is bad parenting. Michelle wasn't saying pulling kids out of school was WRONG. She was telling us that reacting in fear is wrong; and it about a lot more than just SSM being taught in school. We have a lot to fear right now. A lot! The financial crisis, the looming elections, the war in Iraq, the constant threat of terror attacks, SSM becoming legal, immorality being taught everywhere, etc. Maybe people here just assumed she meant all homeschoolers were reacting out of fear, but I don't think that was what she meant. And for those of us who choose to never pull our kids out of public school? Regardless of crazy cirriculums? (how the heck to do you spell cirriculum?) What of us, then?
That's what this post has felt like:
Michelle: Dude. Don't fear! The Gospel teaches us to go forth, even while the world is all cruddy and SSM may pass and be taught in school.
Some Commenters: What?! I'm not a bad person for pulling my kids out of school because of SSM!! Stop judging me!!
I'm just left baffled at the reaction, that's all. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
But there's the flip-side; Michelle is being told that NOT pulling her kids out of school (if she lived in MA) is bad parenting.
Without going back through all the comments, I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. All I noted was myself and others saying that if THEY lived in MA that THEY would pull their kids out because what's happening there is THEIR "line". And Alison was asking people to really think about where they would draw the line for THEMSELVES. She was asking if people had really determined where "their line" is and if they would be willing to pull their kids out if that line was crossed OR would they simply adjust their line.Michelle wasn't saying pulling kids out of school was WRONG.
I know. But as I stated earlier, I think the problem was what SEEMED like an assumption that those who DO pull their kids out (over prop 8, or any another issue) are "freaking out" and making a knee-jerk overreaction, without any thought or concern for the implications and results (which is what you implied i your own response) because they "fear'' and don't understand that God's plan will still go forward even if prop 8 fails.
I don't think that that's what Michelle MEANT-- but because of the phrasing she used, that's how it was being interpreted. -
it's sounds like your saying that if someone pulls their kid out of school because they vehemently disagree with a practice, a protocol, a curriculum, a teaching method, or whatever that it ALSO means they don't trust that the work of God will move forward, or that they are reacting out of an unhealthy, unreasonable fear instead of moving forward with faith.
But that's not what I was saying, and I have tried repeatedly to clarify this. So please, please stop responding to what you THINK I was saying and try to listen to what I actually WAS saying. I left plenty of room for people to choose to take their kids out of school without insinuating that that is all fear and unnecessary! It reaches a point, though, that it feels like there isn't a lot of room for others to choose differently.
Without going back through all the comments, I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. All I noted was myself and others saying that if THEY lived in MA that THEY would pull their kids out because what's happening there is THEIR "line".
Yes, and then that has gone a step further to stand in disbelief that any LDS parents in MA have left their kids in school. I grow weary of people trying to draw lines for others. For example,
"Why do any LDS (or any Christian for that matter) parents in Massachusetts have their kids in pubic schools?"
"To clarify, what I really believe is that as the trend in schools is to become more and more perverted and contrary to God's word, the public schools, more and more, become the One Wrong Way. "
Do you not see how things like this throw assumptions the other direction? As though you can't be a good LDS or Christian parent if you leave your kids in public school at times like this? This is some of what I was responding to. We MUST leave the space for people to make their own decisions, ESPECIALLY when we have heard NOTHING in terms of specific counsel to protect our children by pulling them out of school. We DO hear a LOT about helping them put on the armor of God, and that was my focus. That won't be mutually exclusive, but my point is that you can't use the gospel as your support for judging other parents for their school choices, imo.
Again, I'm not criticizing those who pull kids out or even choose other options! I totally understand why people do. I even understand the desire to help people think through their options. What I don't agree with is the blanket statements made that lump all parents together who do public school (who don't necessarily think of other options in particular), and criticize them as a population, as a group, and question them as a group, trying to draw lines for them.
And frankly, such generalizations, imo, hurt the effort to try to help educate parents about options, which I think is a good conversation to have. I just don't think the way it has taken place here is very effective. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008 edited
But that's not what I was saying, and I have tried repeatedly to clarify this. So please, please stop responding to what you THINK I was saying and try to listen to what I actually WAS saying.
I know that's not what you were saying-- but you said you couldn't understand why there was so much misunderstanding and as someone who previously misunderstood I was trying to explain why.Do you not see how things like this throw assumptions the other direction? As though you can't be a good LDS or Christian parent if you leave your kids in public school at times like this?
Yes, I do. To incinuate that you can't be a good LDS parent if you leave your kids in public school is just as unfair as saying "if you take your kids out of school over prop 8 or anything else then you're just freaking out and overreacting with a knee-jerk decision". (And I know that's not what you were saying) But both are equally unfair statements. They both insinuate that parents aren't thinking things through.
We MUST leave the space for people to make their own decisions, ESPECIALLY when we have heard NOTHING in terms of specific counsel to protect our children by pulling them out of school.
Absolutely, I agree 100%. But, I think what Alison was saying was "But how many of those people are "making their own decision" with the foundational thought and mistaken understanding that they don't have a choice? How many of them WOULD take their kids out if they could, but they THINK they can't?
How many of them feel like the homosexual agenda in schools is "their line", but BECAUSE they feel like they don't have any other choice, just "accept" that "oh well, there's nothing I can do about it" and so they ADJUST their "line".
I think it's a very fair question and I think there's probably a significant number of parents who would fall into that category.
Take Cheryl's comments for example: (sorry Cheryl-- no harm meant, but they provide the perfect example of what Alison was saying!)
"I don't have the option of pulling my kids out of school. We can't afford private school.....Homeschooling would not work for us (because I would probably go insane)."
We don't know for sure because she didn't say, but has Cheryl CHECKED INTO private school?
Did she ask about scholarships? Did she ask about trading volunteer time for tuition discount?Could she possibly work there as a substitute every now and then for pay or in trade? As I said before, we can't afford private school either and I never bothered to check into it because I ASSUMED there was just no way we could do it. I wouldn't have checked into private school any more than I would have checked into buying a mansion in the Hamptons. And yet, between our tax refund (which we only get because we make so little that the government gives alot of our taxes back), the need-based scholarships we were given, and the "trade volunteer time at the school for a reduction in tuition" discount they gave us, the entire 14,900 dollars is covered. (My dollar sign isn't working-- why would that happen?)
Now Cheryl-- you may have checked into all of that, and maybe it still wasn't workable. Maybe you don't get a tax refund. Maybe the private schools in your area don't give need-based scholarships. I have no idea. But how many lower-income parents like me just ASSUME like I did, that there's no way their kids could ever go to a private school, so they don't bother to check because they automatically ASSUME it isn't even a plausible option for them?
As for the "I can't homeschool because I'd probably go insane" comment-- this goes RIGHT to what Alison was saying also. The truth is you COULD homeschool, and I'll bet you WOULD even if it DID drive you nuts, IF you felt the stakes were high enough in the public schools. I'm sure that you WOULD pull them out and homeschool them if things got TOO outrageous -- and that's what Alison was asking. What's "too" outrageous for you? What is the "line" that you would draw in the sand? Have you set a standard? How important is that standard to you? Will you keep that standard, or will you just lower it and let that line be crossed because you'd go "insane" having to teach your kids at home?
Totally exaggerated example-- but if your kids' school district started allowing teens to have unfettered sex on campus because it was "free expression" and they encouraged kids to watch so they could learn to accept naked bodies as "art" or something ridiculous like that, and you'd checked into all the private schools and their scholarship programs and THAT still wasn't doable, I bet you'd put them out of public school and homeschool them even if it made you completely insane. I know that's a completely outrageous example-- but I'm purposely trying to give an example of something that I know would probably "cross a line" for you.
And that's what Alison is asking-- where's your "line"? (I don't think she's asking you to "reveal" your line, but if you've determined one. Would sex on campus be your line? Would required health/sex ed with hom osex uality taught as a norm, mas turbation taught as healthy, kids putting con doms on bananas, etc be your "line"? Would a failed prop 8 be your line? Would school nurses giving your child birth control pills without your knowledge and/or consent be your line? (This happens in California schools)
And if the schools crossed that line, would you pull you're kids out, or would you automatically assume that there weren't any other options because you can't afford private school and you'd go insane teaching them at home?
Alison's assertion is that alot of parents DO have "lines" that they continually allow to be crossed because even after they complain about it, if nothing changes, they don't consider other options as possibilities. It doens't mean that ALL parents do that-- and I don't think she was suggesting that. But I think it's a fair assessment that many DO. -
Fwiw, I wish homeschooling would cease to be discussed in the bloggernacle. It never goes well. I'd rather discuss a less sensitive topic - like abortion.
-
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008 edited
Tracy, thank you. You explained the issue very well.Posted By: cherylDude.
Welcome, cheryl! Anyone who starts their first, non-stalking post with, "Dude" is definitely welcome!
Some parents combat this by homeschooling. That's fine. I know people who homeschool for better reasons, though, such as just wanting their kids to have a good education. I mean, isn't that what school choice should be about?? Education?
This is an interesting point. We began homeschooling only for academic reasons. But since that decision, 15ish years ago, I've found lots of other reasons I love it. I don't know that quality of education is a "better" reason for homeschooling. It would really depend upon how morally problematic the schools are AND how academically superior your homeschool is. Wouldn't it?But some parents do not have the option to pull their kids out of public school because gay marriage might be taught.
Honestly, I don't believe that at all. I think everyone in America has options. They have just been convinced that they don't. I know people in almost every possible family/life situation who use alternative education. It's not always (usually?) easy and you won't get a bus to pull up to your house most of the time.
I would have then taken my kids aside, and used it as a powerful teaching lesson:
"Hey, kids, remember that Plan of Salvation? Well, SSM won't work, etc. etc. we don't believe in SSM, but don't ever, ever, ever be rude, say bad things, bash, etc. and so forth."
Good idea, but it only works if you KNOW, right? And wasn't that the problem from the start?
I also think we fool ourselves if we believe that the influence of repeated, consistent, years-long exposure to ideas will be so easy to remove. Look at the trends in the church. They FOLLOW that of the culture in general! The gospel tends to SLOW the trend, but it still follows. So while the gospel will curtail the divorce rate, drug use rate, premarital sex rate, homosexuality rate, etc., the more our children see this as the norm, the more LIKELY they are to follow the norm--even with the gospel.Homeschooling would not work for us (because I would probably go insane). So what am I supposed to do? Freak out and pull them out just because I'm scared? Regardless of implications, results, etc?
I probably wouldn't suggest freaking out, but if it makes you feel better...
I think there are more options than you realize in private schools, charter schools, co-ops, etc. And I think that almost any caring person could homeschool (without going "insane") if they were willing to have more self-discipline that they are accustomed to. That's not some kind of slam, but come on, what are "the implications"? Are you going to beat your kids bloody? And you want us to believe you couldn't possibly control that urge? Are you going to start snorting ground up valium? And you want us to believe that you really couldn't handle being with your children during the day and would need to resort to drugs?
Do you see my point? Yea, for some people it's a big transition to go from bussing your kids to school, joining PTA, doing homework, and going to parent/teacher conference and taking full charge for your kids' education. But would it *really* make you insane? Do you really know enough about the dynamic to say that?
Honestly, most people have so little CLUE about what homeschooling is really like (or what the various possibilities are) that they can't really speak reasonably to the issue--yet they still DO rule it out as a viable alternative.
I'm not saying that you should homeschool. I don't care at all. But when people rule out an alternative erroneously, it makes the public schools, again, look like the only game in town. Which is JUST what the NEA wants.I also wonder what would happen to our children if they are forced to change from public to private or public to home or both, etc. and how would they react to OUR fear?
If my kids were taking karate at a school that decided to add loud cursing to the curriculum--in place of kias--I'd probably find another school. But I can tell you that NO ONE would "wonder what would happen to them" if they were "forced" to go to a different karate school. And most wouldn't even call my decision one made out of "fear." They'd just think I decided that the school wasn't a great place for my kids.
So, again, why are we assigning this kind of power to a mere SCHOOL? Why would your kids crumble if you found a BETTER place to educate them?See, here's the thing: I would much rather have my children learn how to stand up to things that are wrong than to run away from it.
As a GENERAL statement, I don't think this is true. For example, if a serial murdered broke in your house, would you want your child to "stand up" or "run away"? I would guess you would say that latter. If that assumption is true, then the truth is you want your child to face down the wrong things they are CAPABLE of facing down, not the things that are too much for them. Is that right?
That is the entire basis of my Pull the Kids post. DECIDE, as a parent, what things you think are worth facing down, what things you think are possible to face down--and don't allow the SCHOOLS to go any further. As I said before, I think we often ignore the reality of that BECAUSE looking for alternatives is just too hard and the schools are just too convenient.But if it's done out of FEAR rather than PRAYER, than what is that teaching my child?
As many of us have said, I really don't know why "fear" keeps coming into this in this way and I haven't seen that explained. It's not bad to act out of concern and even fear sometimes. No one suggested avoiding prayer. And taking action to avoid something of concern is not an act of lack of faith--since the faith often doesn't apply to the thing being avoided at all.Even if they defy their father and go to the U of U! (collective gasp from Cheryl's family) ;)
cheryl, I can see you have much bigger concerns to deal with. Godspeed.
-
- CommentAuthorLewis_Family
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
Seriously, sometimes the humor here totally makes my day. -
Dude, love ya Cheryl--you have added to our lives!!!
-
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
Posted by: CherylMichelle is being told that NOT pulling her kids out of school (if she lived in MA) is bad parenting.
I didn't see that. Could you clarify?And for those of us who choose to never pull our kids out of public school? Regardless of crazy cirriculums? (how the heck to do you spell cirriculum?) What of us, then?
If you really would NEVER pull your kids out of public school, no matter what, then THAT is bad parenting.Posted by: Alison Moore Smith
"Why do any LDS (or any Christian for that matter) parents in Massachusetts have their kids in pubic schools?"
Yes, Michelle, I posted this. And it's a QUESTION. It is asking parents to THINK about why they tolerate what they DO tolerate and how much more they WILL tolerate.
As I pointed out earlier, if anyone had suggested when *I* was a child that schools would have required books about gay couples (or ANY aspect of homosexuality at all) and would be taking kids on "field trips" to lesbian weddings, NO ONE would have believed it. And they certainly would have SAID they would not tolerate it. Yet, today, they do. Why? Because we are more advanced and enlightened?To clarify, what I really believe is that as the trend in schools is to become more and more perverted and contrary to God's word, the public schools, more and more, become the One Wrong Way.
And what about this do you disagree?As though you can't be a good LDS or Christian parent if you leave your kids in public school at times like this?
As I said above, I suggest that you can NOT be a good LDS or Christian parent if you really will leave your children in a bad environment--no matter how bad it gets.We MUST leave the space for people to make their own decisions, ESPECIALLY when we have heard NOTHING in terms of specific counsel to protect our children by pulling them out of school.
Oh, hooey. It's bad parenting to leave your toddler unattended by a swimming pool. I leave NO ROOM for parents to "make their own decisions" about that--EVEN THOUGH there is no specific counsel about poolside supervision.
Let's acknowledge, however, that by saying "leave no room to make their own decisions" you really mean something else, since we both know *I* can't make their school choices for them. They have all the "room" to choose that they want. I can only give my opinion. And within that opinion, no, I don't think it's good parenting to REFUSE to see removing kids from public school as an option.That won't be mutually exclusive, but my point is that you can't use the gospel as your support for judging other parents for their school choices, imo.
Huh?What I don't agree with is the blanket statements made that lump all parents together who do public school (who don't necessarily think of other options in particular), and criticize them as a population, as a group, and question them as a group, trying to draw lines for them.
What part of that "lumping" don't you agree with? Specifically what part? Do you think it's "good parenting" to REFUSE to look at options? To make judgments without good information? To leave kids in an environment that gets worse and worse? I'm sincerely trying to figure out what you don't agree with.Totally exaggerated example…
Only for today, Tracy! I think history shows us that the line keeps moving downward unless we stop it. And for the last few decades, few have been willing.
Tracy, second post, spot on again.
Ray, you're killing me. -
Thanks davidson but I've been on this site fora bout 2 years. :)
__I grow weary of people trying to draw lines for others.__
Aren't you trying to draw a line too by telling them they can't draw lines?
(I think Allison would like that one! It reminded me of the judgement thing.)
__In fact, IGNORE what I said about the school situation if that would help. Try reading it just in a general way.__
__This is some of what I was responding to.__
__What I don't agree with is the blanket statements made that lump all parents together who do public school (who don't necessarily think of other options in particular), and criticize them as a population, as a group, and question them as a group, trying to draw lines for them.__
mlindord I'm having a hard time following you. It seemed like you were against Allisons post and then you said it was general and then you said ignore the school part. But then you go back and say yea thats what I was talking about with schools and thats what I don't like.
Its like your going to attack the first post and then when you get response you say its not about that anyway, but then it really is about it and you say so. I feel like saying pick a point or something. -
- CommentAuthorLewis_Family
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
FYI...
You should be able to click on someones name and pull up their stats and see who is new and who isn't... -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 13th 2008
Posted By: CamBendy(I think Allison would like that one! It reminded me of the judgement thing.)
A point for you, CamBendy!
-
Its like your going to attack the first post and then when you get response you say its not about that anyway, but then it really is about it and you say so. I feel like saying pick a point or something.
My original post did want to explore the school thing as a part of the larger message of my post and what I had felt about all of the garbage going on (the thoughts I had were not directly in relation to the other post, but happened as a response to my own personal thoughts about how things are right now in the schools and what I might do if I lived in CA). My heart was heavy for children in general, too, and yet my answer had NOTHING to do with the NEA or the schools or anything. It had to do with the gospel and holding fast to it. That was a replacement for me for focusing and worrying about the schools. Weird, maybe, but maybe not.
But then I felt like that was misunderstood so I wanted people to at least TRY to see the larger point, because there IS a larger point separate from the school thing. There is a lot going on in our world -- financial crises, natural disasters, rising food prices, prophecies of hard times ahead...we are in the last days, people. There is lots we could be afraid of. And yet we are told not to fear. That, to me, is an important message that can stand alone and separate from the discussion about school choice and situations.
I think the timing of this post, because it came so close to Alison's post about pulling kids out of public school, was just bad timing. I should have written it elsewhere or at a different time. She is trying hard to get people to notice (and even possibly be a bit afraid?) of what is happening in the schools (she's trying to spur people to think), and I come along and say, "Don't be afraid." That was not an effort to say 'be indifferent' or 'ignore what is happening around you' which is how I am afraid I was understood. I hope my thoughts are clearer now.
I was just sharing how, interestingly enough, I ended up NOT feeling afraid of what is going on at this point and finding peace simply by realizing that the best protection my kids will get won't necessarily be tied to what we do with schooling. You may get a different answer, and my answer may change in the future, but that is what my answer was for now. (I certainly don't think that qualifies me as a Nephi/Laban like exception, however. I still don't get that.) I also have some pretty good school situations right now, so educationally, we are pretty happy with what is going on. If we weren't, maybe I'd feel differently.
I had no idea sharing my experience and thoughts would cause such a fuss, though. I should have known better. :)
In the end, though, I think discussions like this end up getting out of control fast and yet I'm not so sure that in the end we think THAT much differently at the core. We believe in the gospel and we believe parents should care about their kids. There. Maybe we should just move on. :)
So, who wants to start the discussion about abortion? Ray? -
- CommentAuthorjennycherie
- CommentTimeOct 14th 2008
Getting back to the original post, I do find myself needing a reminder every now and then NOT to act rashly out of fear, before taking the time to pray and calm down and listen to the spirit. There is so much going wrong in the world! Not too long ago, an elderly couple that live just a few doors down from us were held at gunpoint while there home was robbed. You know, up until then, we knew that there was crime in our neighborhood, but we felt like most of the crime was petty and that our particular brand of thug was not interested in taking anything while we were home--just what they could get away with while we were gone! So, now I don't just need to hide the DVD player and the playstation, I need to worry about actually keeping my children safe from the thugs who want our playstation and DVD player!
Similarly, when I think about all the economic turmoil currently, I must remember that we have a living prophet to guide us and that:
"If we are to be safe individually and as families and secure as a church it will be through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel….We will stay on course. We will anchor ourselves as families and as a Church to these principles and ordinances. Whatever tests lie ahead — and they will be many — we must remain faithful and true."
That being said, I am trying to find the balance right now between preparing and finding something better (as in a better house, in a better neighborhood) without letting myself be overcome with fearful urgency to do so. You know, it's easier to be urgent about doing the work of fixing our house if I am worried and dissatisfied with where we are! And yet, I am trying to be happy where we are while we are here!
From Elder Ballard: "it is our privilege and responsibility to be part of the Restoration’s continuing drama, and there are great and heroic stories of faith to be written in our day."
I loved this quote! It is so inspiring!!!! -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 14th 2008
If we are to be safe individually and as families and secure as a church it will be through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel...
I'd still like to explore what this MEANS, because that is all-important in how we apply it. To me it fundamentally means spiritual safety. If we keep the commandments, we protect ourselves spiritually. It is no guarantee of other kinds of safety, even though I think we often like to wrap ourselves in that thought. -
I am going to stay out of the school discussion, but I did want to throw this in.
I don't think any church leader has ever told us just to "not fear." The scriptures and the leaders say and imply, "If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear." I think the silent corollary says, "If ye are not prepared, ye shall go ahead and fear." I don't think that is a commandment so much as it is a statement of actual consequence. If we have made little or no effort to be prepared, we sense that we are not as prepared as we could be, and when we hear the prophecies of the things that lie ahead, or when we recognize the things that face us now, we do feel lasting anxiety and fear. (Everyone is subject to fleeting anxiety and fear.) Cause and effect. If, on the other hand, we are as obedient to the laws and ordinances of the gospel as we know how to be, we find the Savior's peace, even in the face of worrisome things. We have the spiritual safety that Alison and Michelle talked about, and frankly, I think that may be the only safety the Brethren can promise, and maybe the only kind that we should be deeply concerned about. It is probable that following the directions of the Brethren will provide a measure of physical safety, but it is also true that some righteous people will die in the natural disasters that descend on the earth. In the parable, the rain fell upon the just and on the unjust. Some righteous people will be murdered. Some who build their food storage as commanded will have it destroyed in a flood, storm, or fire. Some children of righteous people, in and out of the Church, homeschooled or not, will choose a gay lifestyle. Those who keep the commandments will receive blessings, which may or may not be for this world. Physical safety is such a fleeting, unpredictable thing. We keep our children and ourselves as physically and emotionally and mentally safe as we think we reasonably can, (and "reasonable" means different things to different people), and then we trust the Lord and His promise that no righteous man or woman will die before his appointed time. We trust more fervently in the spiritual safety that comes from obedience, because the Lord is a keeper of promises, if nothing else.
I was amazed at the peace Joseph Smith expressed when he said, "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men." He of all people kept the commandments, and his life was not marked by physical safety for himself or his wife or children. I have been studying his life this week, and I am amazed at how cheerful and hopeful and peaceful he was through such turmoil. When he couldn't be cheerful and hopeful, he was sadly, patiently faithful. Any one incident from his experiences might have done me in.
It is the same peace expressed in the hymn Come, Come Ye Saints: "And should we die, before our journey's through, happy day! All is well!" Now there's a true eternal perspective. (Notice that they were also willing to happily say "all is well" if they continued to live.)
Speaking generally, if there is anything of which to be fearful, it is complacency about or disobedience to commandments. We might appropriately fear that we won't see ourselves and our actions clearly. We might appropriately fear rationalization and procrastination. There is one thing we are commanded to be anxious about: our engagement in good causes, our ability to bring to pass much righteousness. There is one thing we are commanded to fear: God. And the Bible Dictionary indicates that there are two almost opposite uses of the word fear. Godly fear has as its synonyms reverence, awe, and worship. The other type of fear is deemed "unworthy of a child of God, something that perfect love casteth out."
I think we are all agreed that there is important spiritual safety to be had in keeping the commandments (and an adequate amount--at least for God's purposes--of physical, emotional, and mental safety as well.) -
Good point, davidson. Although to me I guess that was implied. :) Think also of angels who have said, "Fear not" outright. Why is that? Because they brought good news, and were messengers from God. If we look to God, we have nothing to fear from the journey.
Jenny, good luck with your effort for balance.
Alison, I think the concept of spiritual safety is implied in that, too, and FWIW, it was not my intention in quoting that to imply that just because we follow the commandments, nothing bad will ever happen to us.
But to me, that is the safety I am most concerned about. I also trust that as I trust God and do my best to do my best in my life, whatever happens will be something I can handle, and that His will will be done and that I can find peace in that. -
Also, Alison, if we follow the prophets, we increase our chance to be protected in other ways. For example, if we follow their counsel to get out of debt and save for a rainy day and have food storage, we won't need to be afraid and panic when financial crises hit. Their counsel isn't an all-out guarantee across the board, but it sure increases our chances of having safety in other ways as well.
-
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 14th 2008
MIchelle, I understand what you're saying. But to me saying "we're spiritually safe if we keep the commandments" is almost akin to saying "if we keep the commandments, we keep the commandments." Well, yea, but how do we make sure we KEEP the commandments? Is it by continually exposing ourselves and/or our children to elements and teachings that are contrary to the gospel?
My point is that just because WE keep the commandments doesn't mean our CHILDREN will be protected from and/or uninfluenced by a bad environment. And it doesn't mean our CHILDREN will keep on keeping the commandments.
Sometimes--even often--it's best to "stand in holy places" and avoid the bad situations all together. I think it's obvious that applies to the single place children spend the biggest percentage of their time. -
Alison,
I disagree to a degree. Our children's protection can be tied to our obedience, because part of that obedience is to create a sacred space at home that can prepare them for what they face, at whatever level that may be, whether it be seeing something on the news while homeschooling, or running into something at public school. Part of obedience is to run the program that helps them put on the armor of God -- family prayer, family scripture study, FHE, church, family dinner time, temple, etc.
There is simply nothing in our teachings that demands what you demand specifically with regard to schools. Your decision and opinion certainly falls into the realms of reason and doctrine, but so do the decisions of others who choose differently! I think that is my main point and concern with how these discussions go, and how discussions often go with people who have chosen to pull kids out of school (even part time!). Discussions like this almost always have the underpinnings of, "This really is the BETTER way to be a parent and to protect your children, and to live the gospel."
Alison, you often talk about how it bugs you when people want to CREATE doctrine. That is what I feel you are doing here to a degree. You are preaching specifics that have never been preached in my lifetime, and it feels like you are holding your decisions and opinion above others' -- saying that this is all the more righteous way to stand in holy places. To YOU it is obvious that standing in holy places means that you don't leave your kids in school all day. But it is not obvious to me that your opinion is the only valid one about what it means to stand in holy places. Do you see what I am trying to get at? The Lord gives us general counsel, and it is part of His plan for us each, individually, with the Spirit, to find our specific answers. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeOct 14th 2008 edited
Posted By: mlinfordI disagree to a degree. Our children's protectioncanbe tied to our obedience, because part of that obedience is to create a sacred space at home that can prepare them for what they face, at whatever level that may be, whether it be seeing something on the news while homeschooling, or running into something at public school.
That's not disagreeing with me. I didn't say that our obedience can't help children to be obedient. I said that our obedience does not MEAN our children will be obedient. So to say, obedience keeps us safe, doesn't address the issue of how a child is ultimately influenced by the school environment.Part of obedience is to run the program that helps them put on the armor of God -- family prayer, family scripture study, FHE, church, family dinner time, temple, etc.
I didn't see anyone suggest we neglect this. Did you?There is simply nothing in our teachings that demands what you demand specifically with regard to schools.
Sincerely, Michelle, what do I "demand" except that parents use common sense in where they stick their children for 16,380 hours of their lives?Your decision and opinion certainly falls into the realms of reason and doctrine, butso do the decisions of others who choose differently!
Again, I disagree. How can it be reasonable or doctrinal to REFUSE to look at where we send our children from the time they are five?Discussions like this almost always have the underpinnings of, "This really is the BETTER way to be a parent and to protect your children, and to live the gospel."
Michelle, I'm not sure how many times I can point out to you--without nauseating myself--that (1) my own kids attend school and (2) I never, once said everyone should homeschool. Is that really unclear? So what could I possibly be proposing as "the BETTER way"? It's obviously not homeschooling and it's also obviously not refusing to use the schools. So what is "the BETTER way" I am supposedly "demanding" of others?Alison, you often talk about how it bugs you when people want to CREATE doctrine. That is what I feel you are doing here to a degree.
For crying out loud, Michelle. "Creating doctrine?" When have I suggested that my opinion is doctrine?You are preaching specifics that have never been preached in my lifetime, and it feels like you are holding your decisions and opinion above others'.
Imagine that. I present my opinion and I think I'm correct about it. And I suppose you think your opinion is wrong? That's why you're proposing it?- saying that this is all the more righteous way to stand in holy places.
What "this" are you talking about? I'll repeat what I actually said, because I think it's quite clear:Posted By: Alison Moore Smith...how do we make sure we KEEP the commandments?s it by continually exposing ourselves and/or our children to elements and teachings that are contrary to the gospel?
My point is that just because WE keep the commandments doesn't mean our CHILDREN will be protected from and/or uninfluenced by a bad environment. And it doesn't mean our CHILDREN will keep on keeping the commandments.
Sometimes--even often--it's best to "stand in holy places" and avoid the bad situations all together. I think it's obvious that applies to the single place children spend the biggest percentage of their time.
Rather than tell me I'm preaching and creating doctrine, why don't you tell me what you SPECIFICALLY disagree with in this statement? Because, honestly, I can't figure out what it would be.
You think we shouldn't stand in holy places? You think we shouldn't "sometimes" or "often" avoid bad situations and, instead, stand in holy places? You think that our children won't be influenced by school/peers/whatever if parents keep the commandments? You think we best learn to keep the commandments by exposing ourselves/children to elements and teachings that contradict the gospel? You think that we should be careful about where we go and what we do UNLESS we're talking about public school and, in that case, we should avoid caution?
I'm parsing out that entire couple of paragraphs and I can't figure out what your knickers are twisted over.
Even the FSOY pamphlet tells kids:Choose your friends carefully. They will greatly influence how you think and act, and even help determine the person you will become. Choose friends who share your values so you can strengthen and encourage each other in living high standards. A true friend will encourage you to be your best self.
So why does it say this? Because it doesn't matter who we're around? Because if our parents are keeping the commandments and/or having FHE weekly, it won't matter?To YOU it is obvious that standing in holy places means that you don't leave your kids in school all day.
Really? I think you misread. Try again. -
take a deep breath mlinford. are you intentionally trying to misunderstand everyone?
hey i dont home school either but i can read. sounds to me like the shoe is just fitting you too well and its giving you bunions. if you have too many issues to ever consider pulling your kids out just admit it and move on. home school is the last thing i want to do but least i can admit it. but i do have a line the schools cant cross. dont know how you can object to that you never even answer the real questions. i think because you dont want to have a standard that you have to stick with. wowsh -
Oh, good grief.
I think about the options to public school ALL. THE. TIME. I changed my kids school to one that was a lot less convenient (as in, we live across the street from the school they used to go to and now we drive them every day) this past year because it was better for my kids. I have considered homeschooling and other options and still have those always as options. We are anything but standardless or passive parents.
Seriously, if you want to talk about misunderstanding, just understand that it is really going both ways. I really am sorry for what I have contributed to this very strange interaction.
Alison, I think it's best if we just stop. I can't figure out what your knickers are in a twist over, either. Like I said before, net-net, I don't think we differ that much at the core. I believe in standing in holy places and choosing friends carefully and doing what we feel we should to protect our children and making careful choices about school. Why that continues to be missed in all of this, I still can't quite tell, but we are clearly not understanding each other and it's not improving by continuing the conversation. I'm sorry that this is to the point of nausea. I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. Let's move on, eh? -
linford, I thought this whole discussion was interesting and would really like you to answer the questions so I can understand. I couldn't see what you didn't like about the stand in holy places statement because its just common sense to me. If your kid was confronted by a gang would you tell them to leave or to fight? I tell my kids to get out of there when its a bad place or even if they just feel bad about a situation I will come get them.
-
I basically appreciated the essay, and the need to protect our kids. I totally agree with the importance of fortifying our children.
But I totally don't get the tears, etc. over the particular situation in Massachusetts. For one thing, the book referred to the homosexual relationship as a "partner" not husband. While I am opposed to same-sex marriage, I don't have a problem with civil unions, as has been done in European countries (without church opposition). So the "partner" language doesn't bother me the way "husband" language would have.
I don't think it is a bad thing to teach diversity. And sending home the book bag allows the parents to deal with it and put that information in context.
As it happens, my daughter's best friend from elementary through middle school was the child of a lesbian. We knew both that family and also the mom's partner's family since she is LDS. Years ago when the women announced that their friendship had changed to a romantic relationship, both of the families dealt with it as best they could. The LDS family divorced, living close enough for joint custody. The children and husband remained active; he serves in the bishopric and their returned-missionary son just married in the temple. The family of my daughter's friend remained married, but moved to a house where the spouses could have separate bedrooms, and they are not always there at the same time. They take turns on weekends. But I've been to a lot of events and award ceremonies involving this child, and both parents are always there. They are all so committed to raising the children.
I think that such a curriculum would be reassuring for those children to know they are not alone.
I don't think acknowledging their existence promotes it as "positive."
I have had a battle with my public library over internet use, and while Boston public schools teach diversity, at least the Boston Public Library has made a decision against the ALA that they don't allow a child unfettered access to the internet without parental consent. The dangers to our children come in lots of different forms. -
The problem, Naismith, comes in that it will likely swing in an extreme direction.
For example, if it really is curriculum, they should have absolutely NO issue informing parents about the details of the curriculum. No teacher would flinch at talking about what will be included in a history unit for the next month, or in a math unit. If we are going to call it curriculum, the schools need to treat it as such, and not give it special treatment. And a parent should have the right to choose to opt out of things that violate their religious beliefs. We give rights to parents who don't want their children to hear God, or Christ-mas, or whatever, at school. We should offer the same rights to parents who don't want their children to be exposed to things that offend them in a religious way. We should not offer more rights to non-religious people, but making gay marriage legal will very likely head us exactly in that direction.
Another example is the recent field trip by first graders to see their lesbian teacher get married. A wedding -- homosexual or heterosexual -- simply is inappropriate and a waste of time for children. Taxpayers dollars should not be going toward a deliberate attempt to take children on such a useless and
People will likely use this to their advantage to indoctrinate children and present homosexuality as positive, to go beyond just acknowledging its existence. Sure, some teachers will be neutral about it, but I am certain that some people won't be. And they will use the law as an excuse to be untouchable about it. In a sense, this violates the religious rights of parents and taxpayers. Again, if we will allow a man to let his daughter opt out of the pledge of allegiance, or control all holiday music and language for the few who aren't Christian, what of the religious rights of those who belief homosexuality is wrong and want to shield their children from things they feel only they as parents should be teaching, from a religious point of view?
Chanjo, you will forgive me, I hope, if I don't continue that conversation. Every time I try to explain my thoughts, it ends up just creating more confusion and misunderstanding. Sorry. Don't want to go there anymore. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeOct 15th 2008 edited
But I totally don't get the tears, etc. over the particular situation in Massachusetts. For one thing, the book referred to the homosexual relationship as a "partner" not husband. While I am opposed to same-sex marriage, I don't have a problem with civil unions, as has been done in European countries (without church opposition). So the "partner" language doesn't bother me the way "husband" language would have.
YOU may not have a problem with civil unions but alot of people do. The point is that this shouldn't be a topic of discussion in a Kindergarten class period.I think that such a curriculum would be reassuring for those children to know they are not alone.I don't think acknowledging their existence promotes it as "positive."
Well then maybe the "diversity" training should include books about kids who's parents molest them, so that any victims of incest who happen to be in the class won't feel alone either. Kids who's parents are huffing off a bong, so they won't feel alone either. I mean, for Pete's sake, Naismith-- we believe that homosexuality is a sin and so does half the population. And you don't present 'sin' to children as though it's acceptable behavior. The problem that books about gay couples present, especially to innocent, impressionable 5 and 6 year olds is that is makes it seem normal and acceptable which gives the impression of "positive".
So let's pretend that I read the following story to my preschool class today.
Little Jimmy lives with his mom, dad and baby sister. Every morning mom takes Jimmy to school, and Dad picks him up in the afternoon. After school, Mom, Dad and Jimmy like to go to the park. Dad pushes Jimmy on the swing while Mom goes down the slide with little sister on her lap. After the park, they go home and Jimmy helps mom make dinner, because he likes to be a helper. After dinner, Jimmy always gets dessert. His favorite is ice cream! Then Jimmy usually plays with his Legos while mom and dad watch TV and smoke cigarettes. When Jimmy starts getting sleepy, Dad reads him a story and puts him to bed, then a little while later mom and Dad go to bed too.
Some people think there isn't anything wrong with smoking cigarettes. Nothing the story said painted the smoking as "positive"-- but just mentioning it made it seem normal, acceptable etc. But you can bet you bottom dollar that no story that any of these Massachusettes or California teachers would passingly mention a little kid's parents smoking cigarettes. They KNOW that just mentioning it (unless your talking about how smoking is UNHEALTHY) in a story like the above would make smoking seem acceptable. And they don't WANT kids to think smoking is acceptable. Those teachers would probably freak out even if the book didn't MENTION cigarettes and the pictures just SHOWED it! They'd be like-- "oh my gosh!! A book for Kindergartners that shows adults SMOKING!!!" They'd think that was horrible. I mean seriously--- when's the last time you saw a children's book about a normal, happy family that showed pictures of adults smoking? You haven't.
It certainly is COMMON. I'll bet half the kids in any given classroom in America (besides Utah :) probably go home to smoking parents. But no Kindergarten teacher would read my made up story to a bunch of 5 or 6 years olds. They would KNOW that THAT was inappropriate. And they certainly wouldn't do it just because they happen to have a classroom of kids who's parents don't smoke, except for little Mike, "so I better read this story so he won't feel alone and like the only kid with smoking parents." -
- CommentAuthorjennycherie
- CommentTimeOct 15th 2008
Posted By: NaismithI think that such a curriculum would be reassuring for those children to know they are not alone.
"
My problem with the whole deal is that it should NOT be part of the curriculum. The school has no business teaching about ANY kind of marriage. That should not be part of the curriculum ESPECIALLY for younger children. -
The problem, Naismith, comes in that it will likely swing in an extreme direction.
Why be so parnoid about it? I remember when abortion became legal. There were many of the same fears. But I don't think anyone nowadays is positive about abortion. It is viewed as a failure and last resort, with serious physical and psychological consequences.For example, if it really is curriculum, they should have absolutely NO issue informing parents about the details of the curriculum. No teacher would flinch at talking about what will be included in a history unit for the next month, or in a math unit. If we are going to call it curriculum, the schools need to treat it as such, and not give it special treatment.
I guess I don't understand where you are going with this. I think it is a sensitive issue, and should get special treatment, more than a history or math unit. According to the Boston Globe, 4/23/05, they did provide multiple notifications before the child brought the bag home:The students take turns bringing home the bag of books promoting diversity,
said Rachel F. Cortez, copresident of the Estabrook parent-teacher association
and a member of the school's Anti-Bias Committee.
Parents received notice about the book bag at the beginning of the year
and the date that it was scheduled to be sent home with their child.
The bag's contents also were put on display at a back-to-school night earlier
in the school year, she said, and parents are not required to have their child
bring it home.
"The kids don't have to take them [the materials] home," she said.
"Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."
The bag was already optional, and the parents received two notifications prior to the bag coming home, as well as the display at back-to-school night. They seemed very upfront about the program. The notification seemed sufficient to me. And I'd rather have a tool that encourages parental involvement than something that goes on only in the classroom.
I viewed my children's sex education materials when given similar notice. I chose not to take them out of class, because I thought the instruction was excellent (they separated out boys and girls, and brought in medical residents to talk to the kids). But we'd talk to them about the bits with which we disagreed.We give rights to parents who don't want their children to hear God, or Christ-mas, or whatever, at school. We should offer the same rights to parents who don't want their children to be exposed to things that offend them in a religious way.
It depends. That sounds like a nice idea. But when it comes to certain classes, not true, in my experience. If you are going to be in a madrigal singing group, you are notified that you will be singing Christian music, because that's what 98% of the available music is. If you don't want to sing those songs, you can join girls glee club instead. If you want to take AP English, you have to read certain books that some religious folks might find objectionable. But because the course is designed around the test, you have to read those books. But it's considered okay because you can take regular english.