Does the teaching method in LDS Primary equal brainwashing?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Children can be brainwashed and it is most often done by parents against another parent during or after divorce. It is called PAS, and it is a reality.

That is not brainwashing, Book of Mormon. Sorry, but it doesn't fit the definition. Assertions do not make arguments.

Do a google for brainwashing and PAS. Or just PAS by itself. It does fit the definition.

Here

Hence, she has involved and continues to involve the child in her battle with the father and the process of programming and brainwashing the child until the child sees matters as the programmer sees them and turns against the father.

That's L. F. LOWENSTEIN MA, Dip.Psych, PhD assertion. You can take it up with him and the other experts that consider PAS brainwashing.

http://www.fact.on.ca/information/pas/lowen99.htm

[_harmony]

Actually harmony a child is anyone under the age of 18 and when they are converted into the Church they actually did have prior beliefs. I indoctrinate children all the time in the school system, I try to change their prior beliefs and behaviors (I work with children with emotional and behavioral disorders mostly) and I don't think it is a dirty word.

First, let's get a few things straight that you obviously don't understand:

1. A child is anyone under 16 (or the age of consent in any given state).
2. Primary is for children 3-11.

By definition, Primary is incapable of brainwashing.

You do not brainwash children, no matter what you do. No one does. The concept of "against one's will" is important here. Children (remember the definition of child--under 16) (especially children with emotional or behavioral disorders) are legally incapable of "will". You might want to review your ethics class (if you ever took one).

Indoctrination is different from brainwashing. That's a more subjective word, and we can discuss whether Primary children are indoctrinated or not, but they are not brainwashed, no matter what.

[Guest]

Actually harmony a child is anyone under the age of 18 and when they are converted into the Church they actually did have prior beliefs. I indoctrinate children all the time in the school system, I try to change their prior beliefs and behaviors (I work with children with emotional and behavioral disorders mostly) and I don't think it is a dirty word.

First, let's get a few things straight that you obviously don't understand:

1. A child is anyone under 16 (or the age of consent in any given state).
2. Primary is for children 3-11.

By definition, Primary is incapable of brainwashing.

You do not brainwash children, no matter what you do. No one does. The concept of "against one's will" is important here. Children (remember the definition of child--under 16) (especially children with emotional or behavioral disorders) are legally incapable of "will". You might want to review your ethics class (if you ever took one).

Indoctrination is different from brainwashing. That's a more subjective word, and we can discuss whether Primary children are indoctrinated or not, but they are not brainwashed, no matter what.

Harmony, I never said anything about primary. I was not arguing that parents can not indoctrinate their children. I don't care what they do in primary. You stated that children can not be brainwashed, I say they can. You state children do not have legal rights, they do. I was merely stating that. I don't care what is done in primary.

Did I need to understand that primary is for ages 3-11 to know that children have rights?

Just caught your Ethics barb. I did take ethics class. I took quite a few ethics class not only in the field of special education but also because I minored in philosophy when I was an undergrad.

Are you trying to say that children have no beliefs before they hit the age of 16? When they come into a classroom and believe that it is appropriate to hit and spit on people (because that is what they learned at home) it is perfectly acceptable for me to alter that behavior. I do not do anything unethical.

[_Who Knows]

Your basic premise is incorrect, Who Knows. If you don't accept that, it's not my fault.

How much plainer do I have to say it? Only adults can be brainwashed! Let me see if I can spell it out any plainer: children cannot be brainwashed. There. Is that understandable? Children cannot be brainwashed, because brainwashing is 1) RE education and 2) against one's will (children have no legal will).

Mind control of children is impossible, since children have no legal definition of will. You can have mind control of the parents, but not of the children. And if that's silly, don't blame me. Blame our founding fathers. (Children also have no legal rights in this country, but that's another thread.)

We complain repeatedly here about apologists who twist words and make up definitions to suit themselves. Well, that's exactly what you're doing, Who Knows. Either work with the definition as it is, or get lumped into the Juliann camp.

Brainwashing is only possible for adults.

Who's the one in the Juliann camp - insisting on using only a certain definition?

Ok, let's play:

From merriam websters:

1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

forcible indoctrination? check
give up basic religious beliefs? check (children are born with beliefs - agnostic or atheistic in my opinion)
contrasting regimented ideas? check
persuasion by propoganda? check

Go to different dictionaries, and you'll find different definitions. I also note that in your 'wiki' definition, it's noted that the APA hasn't either accepted or rejected it.

Here's another definition:

The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

And another:

any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion

But whatever, if you want to defend it based on a definition you like, go ahead.

[_Tarski]

Actually harmony a child is anyone under the age of 18 and when they are converted into the Church they actually did have prior beliefs. I indoctrinate children all the time in the school system, I try to change their prior beliefs and behaviors (I work with children with emotional and behavioral disorders mostly) and I don't think it is a dirty word.

First, let's get a few things straight that you obviously don't understand:

1. A child is anyone under 16 (or the age of consent in any given state).
2. Primary is for children 3-11.

By definition, Primary is incapable of brainwashing.

You do not brainwash children, no matter what you do. No one does. The concept of "against one's will" is important here. Children (remember the definition of child--under 16) (especially children with emotional or behavioral disorders) are legally incapable of "will". You might want to review your ethics class (if you ever took one).

Indoctrination is different from brainwashing. That's a more subjective word, and we can discuss whether Primary children are indoctrinated or not, but they are not brainwashed, no matter what.

brainwash

brain·wash [bráyn wòsh, bráyn wàwsh]
(past and past participle brain·washed, present participle brain·wash·ing, 3rd person present singular brain·wash·es)
transitive verb
1. impose beliefs on somebody: to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs
2. condition somebody to behave differently: to induce somebody to believe or do something, e.g. to buy a new product, especially by means of constant repetition or advertising

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[_harmony]

Children can be brainwashed and it is most often done by parents against another parent during or after divorce. It is called PAS, and it is a reality.

That is not brainwashing, Book of Mormon. Sorry, but it doesn't fit the definition. Assertions do not make arguments.

Do a google for brainwashing and PAS. Or just PAS by itself. It does fit the definition.

Here

Hence, she has involved and continues to involve the child in her battle with the father and the process of programming and brainwashing the child until the child sees matters as the programmer sees them and turns against the father.

That's L. F. LOWENSTEIN MA, Dip.Psych, PhD assertion. You can take it up with him and the other experts that consider PAS brainwashing.

http://www.fact.on.ca/information/pas/lowen99.htm

Are you seriously comparing PAS with Primary? (and do you think everything that a PhD writes is automatically acceptable? If so, let me introduce you to Dr Peterson. He'll no doubt be glad to include you in his fan club.)

Until the APA comes out with a definition of the concept, Dr Lowenstein is as unfettered as anyone else, but his (her?) assertions do not meet the legal requirement for "will" either.

Unless, of course, you're saying that the 2 basic premises for brainwashing are not required? (a reminder of that those are: 1) prior beliefs, and 2) against one's will).

[_barrelomonkeys]

Children can be brainwashed and it is most often done by parents against another parent during or after divorce. It is called PAS, and it is a reality.

That is not brainwashing, Book of Mormon. Sorry, but it doesn't fit the definition. Assertions do not make arguments.

Do a google for brainwashing and PAS. Or just PAS by itself. It does fit the definition.

Here

Hence, she has involved and continues to involve the child in her battle with the father and the process of programming and brainwashing the child until the child sees matters as the programmer sees them and turns against the father.

That's L. F. LOWENSTEIN MA, Dip.Psych, PhD assertion. You can take it up with him and the other experts that consider PAS brainwashing.

http://www.fact.on.ca/information/pas/lowen99.htm

Are you seriously comparing PAS with Primary? (and do you think everything that a PhD writes is automatically acceptable? If so, let me introduce you to Dr Peterson. He'll no doubt be glad to include you in his fan club.)

Until the APA comes out with a definition of the concept, Dr Lowenstein is as unfettered as anyone else, but his (her?) assertions do not meet the legal requirement for "will" either.

Unless, of course, you're saying that the 2 basic premises for brainwashing are not required? (a reminder of that those are: 1) prior beliefs, and 2) against one's will).

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PRIMARY! EVER! EVER! EVER! In this thread until you brought it up! Read what I write and then reply to me. Good grief!

[_Tarski]

ah hem,
Harmony



brain·wash [bráyn wòsh, bráyn wàwsh]
(past and past participle brain·washed, present participle brain·wash·ing, 3rd person present singular brain·wash·es)
transitive verb
1. impose beliefs on somebody: to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs

2. condition somebody to behave differently: to induce somebody to believe or do something, e.g. to buy a new product, especially by means of constant repetition or advertising

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[_harmony]

Harmony, I never said anything about primary. I was not arguing that parents can not indoctrinate their children. I don't care what they do in primary. You stated that children can not be brainwashed, I say they can. You state children do not have legal rights, they do. I was merely stating that. I don't care what is done in primary.

Then our discussion is done, because this thread is about Primary.

Did I need to understand that primary is for ages 3-11 to know that children have rights?

Children do not have rights until they reach the age of consent (usually 14-16, depending on the state). Thus, by definition, children in Primary (the subject of the thread) do not have rights.

Just caught your Ethics barb. I did take ethics class. I took quite a few ethics class not only in the field of special education but also because I minored in philosophy when I was an undergrad.

Didn't they go over the concept of legal will, and children's rights, and how those rights are subjucated to parents rights? And what your legal obligations are? Geez... did you go to school in Utah or something?

Are you trying to say that children have no beliefs before they hit the age of 16? When they come into a classroom and believe that it is appropriate to hit and spit on people (because that is what they learned at home) it is perfectly acceptable for me to alter that behavior. I do not do anything unethical.

I'm saying that children in Primary are nowhere near the age of consent, and thus are not subject to brainwashing. I'm saying that 3 hear olds are a clean slate, and have no beliefs of their own. Any beliefs they have are tied to their parents' beliefs. And anyone who says a 3 year old has a testimony of the truthfulness of the church is simply unbelievable.

[_Who Knows]

Unless, of course, you're saying that the 2 basic premises for brainwashing are not required? (a reminder of that those are: 1) prior beliefs, and 2) against one's will).

Says who?