so, what happened today in Sacrament meeting?

[_wenglund]

Apparently, some parents see their mission is to teach their children to be cynical, distrusting, and unbelieving, while other parents see their mission is to teach their child to be just the opposite (loving, trusting, and believing).

If both sets of parents are successful in their mission, which of their children do you suppose will be most likely to succeed in life as well as be instrumental in diminishing many of life's disparities (enabling the starving Africans to attain food, the sick to heal, and help the war and violence-ridden communities to find peace)? Which of the children will be best suited to uplift and improve themselves as well as help others do the same? Which of the children may best be able to find comfort and solace for themselves and give the same to others following a broad range of sorrows and tribulations?

Just something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree with your idealism.

I appreciate that. However, I wasn't thinking so much in idealistic terms as I was in pragmatic and functional terms (i.e. what is in the best interest of the children--what kinds of parental instruction will best position the children to succeed in life and improve the world as a whole).

While some parents may be well-intended in wishing to teach their children cynicism, distrust, and disbelief (so as to protect them from being too gullible and duped), they may not be congnizant of how specific applications of cynicism and skepticism may be generalized by the children, and may come back to "bite" all parties concerned. A lesson on disparity as justification for cynicism, disbelief, and distrust in loving God, may get translated in the child's mind as disparity being a justification for disbelief and distrust in self and others--including one's parents. It is not much of a stretch for children to translate "starvation in Africa means there is no loving God" and apply the same "logic" to mean "some of the kids in my school have a lot of things I don't have and can do alot of things I can't, so their parents must love them more than mine....and those kids may be more lovable than me".

I am not suggesting that cynicism, or rather skepticism, shouldn't be taught to children. I believe a healthy dose of skepticism is good. However, I see it as best being taught as a temporing mechanism, rather than a primary epistemic approach. I see it as minor point of parental consideration and instruction (particularly during the earlier stages of child development), rather than a principle parental "mission".

But, others like Sethbag may disagree.

Your argument here would actually fit in well on PP's thread, "Does the Teaching in LDS Primary equal Brainwashing?"

Here is the link:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... php?t=2615

Thanks, I will take a look.

But Wade, do you think it's wise for parents to bring children up to the stand and have them parrot a testimony on a regular basis, or do you think it's better for them to develop it on their own? Also, as I mentioned to Kevin earlier, I believe that the Church actually came out with some official statements against this practice. In my Ward, it's more the exception than the rule.

Do you happen to remember, by chance, when that directive was made?

I am not familiar with the directive, but I have no problem either way--I can see value in children "parroting" what the parents say (this is not an uncommon form of effective pedagogy) as well as value in restricting the practice during Fast and Testimony meetings (reserving such things for other occasions like Family Home Evening or Primary).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

I have also heard members suggest that the noble and great ones include Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Confuscious, Siddhartha Gautama, and others like that.

I have heard this as well.

My take on that scripture was that the "noble and great ones" was left rather innocuous. One can speculate who the "noble and great ones" are. The scripture goes on to discuss Abraham more in detail, so it's obvious that he is considered one of the "noble and great ones", and he certainly wasn't born in the U.S. ;)

I assumed that the prophets of old were among the "noble and great ones" and hoped that maybe I would accomplish something with my life that might put me into that category. I always felt like it was within anyone's reach to be among the "noble and great ones" if they dedicated their lives to God's service. That was always my interpretation of that particular scripture. The doctrine according to Liz...LOL...However wrong it probably is. ;)

[_Sethbag]

What exactly does "testimony" mean coming from the mouth of a kid so young they don't even know how to tie their own shoe? They couldn't tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, or read the word "cat", yet they "know" that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, etc. Give me a break. That's a testimonkey if ever a situation justifed that term.

Seth, you have really become dead to spiritual things, haven't you?

If, by this, you mean I've broken the spell, then yes.

Consider the poem of Wordsworth, "heaven lies about us in our infancy". Are you so sure that little children cannot know these things?

Yes I am.

This is why I have such a low opinion of exmos. They know everything, yet they know nothing. They are as fools, and the Book of Mormon got it right when, quoting Isaiah, it said, "forasmuch as this people draw near to me with their mouth, but their heart is FAR from me.......".

Only, I don't draw near him anymore with my mouth, and my heart is in the direction of actual, demonstrable, defensible, truth, not superstition, mythology, mind-twisting mental gymnastics, deception, and mind games on little children.

You have lost it, my friend. You and beastie, and all your "learning". In a spiritual sense you have almost become retarded, and I'm sorry if that offends beastie, but there is no better way to describe it.

Good night. Life goes on, and the packing, and the move goes on. Best wishes.

You too, I wish you a good move.

[_Sethbag]

It seems like I remember several years ago something being read from the pulpit that testimonies were to be kept brief.....not a travel log...they were to confirm faithfulness of the gospel with perhaps a short story or reflection supporting this, but nothing too lengthy, and there was also a mention about young children bearing testimonies. It was encouraged that this be kept more to the primary room setting.

And getting little children to bear a testimonkey in the primary room is any better? Not in my book. They're conditioning the child to be predisposed to accept something as true later in life simply through sheer repetition. I should add that the kids who got up and bore their testimonkeys yesterday, in all but one case (where the child was helped by a slightly older brother), were not coached by a parent, but in fact had succeeded in memorizing the rote "I love my mommy and daddy, and I know the church is true, and I know the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are true" mantra, and were able, with obviously a great sense of achievement, to recite this on their own and make mommy proud.

[_Sethbag]

Apparently, some parents see their mission is to teach their children to be cynical, distrusting, and unbelieving, while other parents see their mission is to teach their child to be just the opposite (loving, trusting, and believing).

Some parents believe that mentally conditioning a child to "know" something that they can't possibly really know, is really cute. Let's get our children to follow in our own footsteps. If we start while they're young, we have the best chance of getting them for life! Give me a break. My daughter isn't cynical or distrusting at all, however she's also growing up with a rational faculty and the ability to exercise critical thinking and sound judgment. If rational thought, critical thinking, and sound judgment are the opposites of kids raised with the mental conditioning of kids of belief in something they know really nothing about, then I'm all for it.

If both sets of parents are successful in their mission, which of their children do you suppose will be most likely to succeed in life as well as be instrumental in diminishing many of life's disparities (enabling the starving Africans to attain food, the sick to heal, and help the war and violence-ridden communities to find peace)? Which of the children will be best suited to uplift and improve themselves as well as help others do the same? Which of the children may best be able to find comfort and solace for themselves and give the same to others following a broad range of sorrows and tribulations?

My daughter, by far, because she will recognize that these problems aren't going to be solved unless she and others do something about it. On the other hand, you'll have good, stalwart LDS people who will occasionally toss a mention of the plight of others into a prayer, and then go on with their lives feeling good because they've been thoughtful enough to ask God to do something about it.

Just something to think about.

Indeed.

[_mentalgymnast]

A few comments:

1. If we are constrained in what we can ask for, in our prayers, our agency is the victim. Pray for world peace, and then do something to make it happen. Pray to end world hunger, and then do something to make it happen. Pray to find your car keys, and then look for them! I've never heard of anyone having their car keys appear in their hand after they prayed about it. Even finding car keys requires action.

2. If finding lost car keys is important (can't get to work, can't take children to school, missed plane so didn't go to training so got fired so family is now homeless) then I don't see why asking for a little help is such a bad thing. Who are we to judge what is important in each life?

3. Just because we live in a place where we don't have neighbors who go to war against us doesn't mean we all have an easy life. The consequences of our choices follow us, no matter where we live. Those who live in Africa and have unprotected sex with multiple partners are quite likely to catch AIDS. That is a consequence of their choice. That the resulting children also have AIDS is a consequence of the parents' choice. Why should God remove the consequence of the parents choice? To do so would negate their agency. Is the child worth more to God than the parents? Blame the parents, not God. Same goes for the warring tribes. It's their choice to go to war, their choice to attack children with machetes. Blame the tribesmen, not God. Were he to take their agency away, he could do the same to us.

God is no respector of persons. Therein lies the greatest blessing he could give us. The rain falls on the rich and the poor alike. We are required to care for our brothers, love our enemies, comfort the grieving and feed the poor. Do we? Or do we expect God to do it for us? Do we give what we have freely, or do we complain that we are made to feel guilty because we only grudgingly give it away? People are dying in Africa, yes, and everywhere else around the world. They always have. They always will. It is the nature of life. The only thing we can change is How. The choices we make in life is what determines the how of our death. Does the African tribeman choose to weild a machete in order to steal another's land and home? Or does he choose instead to be a healer, a peacemaker, a leader of his tribe in more modern ways? He chooses his own path, just as we choose ours. God will not take the agency given to anyone, not even those who do evil or whose choices mean dire consequences for others.

All of the suffering in this world is caused by men, not God.

Well said

Amen.

Regards,
MG

[_Some Schmo]

God gives us hope that we can make a difference. God gives us comfort that things will turn out better and perspective that our personal suffering doesn't matter a hill of beans compared to the expanse of time and space. God also gives us direction by pointing out not only what people have done in the past and present to address problems, but also by inspiring them to address them.

I would agree with everything said here if it were worded like this:

"Our concept of God gives us hope that we can make a difference. Our concept of God gives us comfort that things will turn out better and perspective that our personal suffering doesn't matter a hill of beans compared to the expanse of time and space. Our concept of God also gives us direction by pointing out not only what people have done in the past and present to address problems, but also by inspiring them to address them."

That would be much more accurate. The fact is, god doesn't do anything people don't make him do in their imaginations first.

[_barrelomonkeys]

God gives us hope that we can make a difference. God gives us comfort that things will turn out better and perspective that our personal suffering doesn't matter a hill of beans compared to the expanse of time and space. God also gives us direction by pointing out not only what people have done in the past and present to address problems, but also by inspiring them to address them.

Many of us believe that if God stopped that we would notice the difference, but of course God doesn't tend to indisputably prove His hand in anything.

abestosman, I'm sorry for what I wrote this morning. I know that God does those things and much more for many, many people. I was being flippant and I apologize. I realize that He fulfills what is needed in the realm of comfort for many.

[_Ren]

God gives us hope that we can make a difference. God gives us comfort that things will turn out better and perspective that our personal suffering doesn't matter a hill of beans compared to the expanse of time and space. God also gives us direction by pointing out not only what people have done in the past and present to address problems, but also by inspiring them to address them.

Many of us believe that if God stopped that we would notice the difference, but of course God doesn't tend to indisputably prove His hand in anything.

The 'concept' of God provides this comfort even if God doesn't really exist.
...this is why I'm in no big rush to wipe religion off the face of the earth...

[_barrelomonkeys]

God gives us hope that we can make a difference. God gives us comfort that things will turn out better and perspective that our personal suffering doesn't matter a hill of beans compared to the expanse of time and space. God also gives us direction by pointing out not only what people have done in the past and present to address problems, but also by inspiring them to address them.

Many of us believe that if God stopped that we would notice the difference, but of course God doesn't tend to indisputably prove His hand in anything.

The 'concept' of God provides this comfort even if God doesn't really exist.
...this is why I'm in no big rush to wipe religion off the face of the earth...

I agree!