Religion is Obsolete

[_keene]

That depends upon what you mean by "punish". A nature consequence of not knowing trigonometry is not receiving the blessing derived from that knowledge. For example, one may not have the blessing of being excepted into certain graduate programs (or in other words, they may be denied admitance) because they lack the necissary prerequisite of trigonometry knowledge. Some may consider that a form of punishment. But, I don't.

Likewise, if one is unable to abide the higher spiritual laws, one is thereby denied the blessing associated with that higher law. One cannot expect to achieve Godhood without living in godly ways and abiding godly laws.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that godliness is something that needs to be achieved during this life. What I understand as important to God is not so much the level of achievement one attains in this life, but rather whether one is progressing and at a reasonable rate. (The parable of the hirlings comes to mind)

I still very strongly disagree with the assumption that the lower laws must be lived first to understand the higher laws. This bottom-up approach seems like we're going in backwards. Especially when you find that the makers of the laws did so in order to solve a higher problem. If the makers of the law saw the higher problem, and then enacted a solution, why is everyone else subjected to doing the reverse -- acting the solution only to later understand the reason for it? It seems counter-intuitive to the natural functioning of the human spirit -- the ability to problem solve.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of teaching kindergartners trigonometry prior to educating them on what numbers are and simple addition and subtraction, and doing so because the makers of trigonometry made it to solve a higher problem. Does that make sense to you?

Except the kindergarteners aren't trying to solve quadratic equations.

Exactly, nor should they be expected to. But, esentially, that is what you would be doing by obligating people to abide the higher laws prior to their growing to the point where they can abide it.

That statement was meant to show that I don't agree with your analogy. I think my post to you above more accurately shows what I meant to communicate by this idea. Most of the rest of this post is covered by this concept.

You evidently have quite a different understanding of love than I do. As I understand Christ-like love, it is the epitomy of obedience to the two great commandments upon which all the laws and the prophets rest, it entails obedience to the laws and commandments of God, and it is a state of being or a way of life that is achieved through obedience. In short, Christ-like love does not exist nor can it be achieve absent obedience. (For biblical references, please see HERE.

This again comes from the previous issue that I have brought up of our differing revelations. The questions are in my post above, and if we can answer those, then I think the rest of these will sort themselves out.

The difference that you just noted is irrelevant to the point that the analogy was intended to make. Try looking for the similarities in principle, rather than the material differences, and perhaps you will get the point.

That's my point -- the principles don't match. The analogy is flawed.

If the problem is that mankind, for the most part, is in the spiritual valley of carnal, sensual and devilishness, and the hope and desire for them is to reach the top of the spiritual mountain of godliness, then it would seem far more reasonable to me to take them step-by-step, through graduated levels laws, to the top rather than expecting them to make it in a single bound by obliging them to abide the higher law of godliness--which they may, as yet, be incable of abiding.

I think the belief that people are incapable of abiding a higher law is incredibly limiting and insulting. I think this is covered much better again in my previous post, with the riding a bike analogy. It can't be expected of people to naturally assume to know how to ride, but giving them training wheels doesn't help them get there. It just helps them to avoid getting hurt -- which is also robbing them of a wonderful experience of life, in my opinion. It's learned through practice and thought, not by obedience.

By doing so, you would, ironically, be addressing the symptom rather the cause of the problem. You would, by your own "reasoning", be challenging the efforts to address the supposed symptoms, rather than addressing the problem itself (whatever it is that you suppose the problem to be).

I wonder, too, if you correctly or fully understand what the problem really is? You have mentioned povert as a problem. But, isn't that really a symptom of ungodliness--i.e. greed, laziness, ineptitude, and lack of faith and hope? Isn't the role of religion to address the problem of ungodliness, rather than thwart societies efforts to deal with the symptom that is poverty? Doesn't religion fulfill that role and address the problem of ungodliness by providing a graduated level of laws that enable mankind to become godly? By there so doing, wouldn't that eventually help eliminate the symptom of poverty? Wouldn't obliging mankind to abide a level of law they, as yet, are incapable of abiding, actually produce the very ungodly effects of hopelessness and faithlessness and poverty the religious and secular laws are intended to overcome? In other words, wouldn't your suggestion actually contribute to the problem, rather than fixing it?

This again comes down to our differing revelations. I do think laziness, ineptitude, lack of faith in oneself are all ungodly, if used incorrectly. Laziness can be a very godly thing, especially when it comes to invention. All technology came to be simply because people were lazy. Ineptitude can be a godly thing if it is realized and known. Invention can be made to overcome it- it can be used in a different manner to become a strength. Lack of faith can even be godly, when it gets you to question restrictions or beliefs that may be holding you back from becoming much more godly.

For everything, turn turn turn, there is a season, turn turn turn.

I mentioned poverty as a problem not so much because I thought it was a core problem, but to tie it into the tithe analogy. Although, it has been shown several times that societies efforts to end poverty through social programs has had more of a spreading effect than a curing effect. I think change needs to happen on an individual basis, and that laws are made to change things on a societal basis. The system is designed to ignore the individuality.

As for your final question, would my solution contribute to the problem? It depends on what you think my "solution" is. I think if anarchy were suddenly brought upon the people, that there would be turmoil for a couple years, and then another system of government and laws brought in it's place.

However, what I see happening instead is an evolution. Increased education. MUCH more responsibility placed on the individual. Peer-based judgement of corporate activities, with ethical decisions made by the majority of users. I think a system of questioning set to replace the system of governing, or perhaps not even replace it, but build on it, would definitely reduce the causes and symptoms of problems. It would not remove them completely, and never will, because when you get right down to it, some people want to be stupid.

But regardless with the problems I see in either of our systems, my question remains, how can we do it better?

By "godly people", I mean people becoming like God. So, if God is the epitomy of charitable love and selfless sacrifice, then one cannot become like him without growing to epitomize the characteristics of charitable love and selfless sacrifice. Obviously.

This again goes to our differing revelations, then. I don't see God as the epitomy of charitable love and selfless sacrifice. Instead, I see him as the great educator. I think his love is evidence by our freedom of mind, not by any sacrifice on his part. To become like him, we must allow ourselves and others to be free, just as he allowed himself and us to be free.

I eagerly await your response to my questions in my other post, as to how we can effectively determine the validity of our revelations.

You seem to presume that the knowledge entailed in the higher laws is somehow inherent in each of us and fully understood by each of us at any or all times, rather than something that is learned and developed through personal growth over time. It is like thinking that a kindergartner is somehow already possessed with the knowledge of trigonometry, and that it is somehow wasting their minds for educators to have the children gather the pebbles of simple addition and subtraction and solve each of their tiny problems in graduated succession. Does that really make sense to you?

Again, flawed analogy.

As I ponder it more, I think our disagreement comes more from the method of learning, than by what is being learned. I'm sure we can agree that a good ethical code is a goal we both wish to attain.

Your method of learning is one of learning the small things first, and building from there. It's very scholarly. Mine is one of a more natural learning, such as learning language, walking, and even of martial arts.

I suppose then, our argument may not be about whether or not laws are obsolete, but which learning method works better. I suppose that is also something to be taken on an individual basis. For some, being controlled may be the best way to learn. For others, this is obviously not working. No ammount of drug laws has gotten people to quit taking drugs, for example. My proposal is instead a different way of teaching ethics, to reach a wider audience.

In much the same way, in principle, that enforced education teaches people trigonometry. Through learning about, practicing, and applying the charitable principle of tithing, one may become charitable to that extent, just as learning about, practicing, and applying the principles of trigonometry, one may become a trigonomitrist. Obviously.

In the case of trigonometry, I would agree. In the case of behavior and motivation, I would not.

The lessons are best taught to the students at their level. Teaching kindergarten children at a trigonometry level doesn't work. In fact, it would be quite counterproductive--i.e. it would likely drastically decrease the children's desire and hope and faith in ever learning trigonometry. The same is true for teaching the principle of charity at the level of the law of sacrifice to those yet unable to fully and correctly understand the principle at a tithing level.

However, for those who, through graduated learning, have achieved at trigonometry level of understanding, it is best to teach them at that level, rather than at the level of basic addition and subtraction. The same is true for teaching the principle of charity to those rare few who have attained a christ-like level of love.

What is strange to me is that, in the histories, those who have attained godliness did not do so through obedience. They got it through questioning. Even the example of Joseph Smith, he questioned the laws and ordinances that the churches were teaching them. Buddha questioned the structure of the ruling class. Martin Luther King Jr. questioned the role of blacks in society. Moses questioned the role of Jews in egyptian society. These people were not obedient, they were questioning. Even Christ did not obey jewish and roman law. He questioned the people about it.

Again, I think this question is addressed in my previous post, where I contend that your trigonometry analogy is flawed.

[Mary Antoinette]"Let them eat cake[/Mary Antoinette]

While I believe that your heart is in the right place, and your desires for improving the human condition are laudable, I see your understanding of laws and love and godliness and even humanity, to be astonishingly niave.

This is a point where I feel I must interject. Although I may be naïve to your particular understanding of laws, love, and godliness, I think the issue doesn't arise from a lack of study, but again, our differences in revelation and beliefs. When we had our revelations of truth, we both went on different paths of study, with different understandings of the world. Is either one right? I'm not sure yet. I believe that mine is right, because of my experience. But you believe yours is right for the same reason. This problem between us isn't a problem of niavity or ignorance, but a problem of philosophy.

The main problem is very few of our assertations or statements have verifiable and testable evidence. We are both correct, in our own realities and communities, but wrong in eachothers. Understanding the motives of anyone other than yourself is, quite frankly, impossible. That makes any discussion on this subject difficult -- but again, it's not a problem of naivity.

I agree that, for the most part, people want to do what is right. However, their grasp of what is right, and their capacity for doing right, is quite another thing, and may be a far cry from the highest level of what God grasps as right and is capable of doing. For examle, a child may be able to grasp that it is right to share her toys with others, and may also be capable of acting on that understanding, but may naturally lack the capacity to graps or be capable of doing what is right in say...providing for her own family, or feeding a nation of starving people, etc. The same is true for spiritual precepts. A spiritual teen (of whatever age) may bearly be able to grasp and act on the charitable principle of tithing (some spiritual children are not even able to abide tithing), let alone be expected to have the level of Christ-like love needed to abide the law of sacrifice.

I find it interesting that you say our grasp of what is right could be a far reach from what God grasps is right. This begs the question, what does God think is right? How can we know that? How can I be assured that the laws I'm expected to obey are God's laws, and not just something someone made up some time?

And more importantly, how will Obedience to these laws help me answer those questions? Since those questions are really what the higher law is all about, isn't it?

As such, one does not get them to the point of abiding the highest level of law by simply expecting them at first and all along to abide it (i.e. "let them eat cake"), but rather through growth and development in understanding and ability faciliated, in part, by graduated levels of law. In fact, as previously noted, expecting people to abide a level of law they do not undersand nor have the capacity of abiding, is unmerciful and counterproductive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you're beginning to see things the way I was -- that is seeing the abiding the higher law as an event, rather than a process. What I'm suggesting isn't just to say "love one another" and then let people fight it out. I'm asking that each action be questioned. What is the purpose of this? Is this act harming others? What is my motivation? What could I be doing better? How can I achieve that? Continually question each law and each action, rather than obey.

This creates a number of benefits -- the first of which being that with an understanding of the law, and the motivation for it, it becomes much easier to follow. When told "Don't do drugs," I find it now a temptation that I have to fight against. But instead, if I were to study WHY I should or should not do drugs, the dangers and benefits, the societal implications, the legal risks, and find my personal motivation for avoiding them, then it becomes much easier. It's no longer a struggle or a fight. It's simply the way I behave.

The second benefit is the increased freedom. When you're no longer struggling against or for obedience, then your mind is free to focus on things of light and goodness. Temptations become a thing of the past. All from questioning, rather than obeying.

If you view it as an event, rather than a process of study and mediation, then I could see where your concept that lawlessness will cause chaos and disorder can come about, because then there is no code of ethics to replace it. But the process of questioning is something that can be taught without a foundation of obedience behind it.

Perhaps I can tie it back into the trigonometry concept: We're not teaching the kindergartener trigonometry, we're teaching them how to study, so they can learn trigonometry on their own.

[_wenglund]

The risks for driving are well known. If I were in an accident, and gained an injury that the other driver couldn't pay for, then I would accept what he could pay for, and work the rest out myself. Chances are, that's what I'd have to do anyway. I understand that risk, and wouldn't step anywhere near a car otherwise. I would hope other people understand the risk for driving; rather than try to shoulder me (or, more realistically, the faceless "others") with the responsibility for their safety.

There are many, many drivers who pay thousands in insurance every year, but who never even get in a fender-bender. These laws bring us to equality without fairness. And it takes the responsibility out of the hands of the people who need it.

If the leaders were truly looking out for the self interest of others, I believe they would go about things in a much different manner. Too much law is addressed to merely cover up the symptoms of societal unrest.

On the surface, I can see how these laws are looking out for the best interest of everybody. But if you go any deeper, these laws create a structure of reassurance for the people -- which brings me back to what I said earlier with Gazalem's description of the Holy Ghost... Reassurance, to me, is a hollow goal that leaves no room for motivation or progression. Looking out for people truly would motivate them to become better than what they are, rather than reward them with safety for remaining the same.

This goes to one of my core beliefs as I addressed in my Articles of Faith: One is fully responsible and accountable for their own mind, body, feelings, and circumstance. As soon as someone takes on that responsibility, change always happens for the better. If any structures are set up to take that responsibility from people, then there becomes no reason to change.

My intent here is not to get into a debate about car insurance and licencing, but to vet the notion of laws.

It appears to me that you are looking at only one side of the law equation. You are looking at how the laws may tend to limit individual and societies ability to be their best selves, rather than how they also may enable individuals and societies to acheive their best selves. As you say, the notion of "reasurance" may act as a demotivator and a limit on progression, but it may also act as a motivator and a means of progression. Not a few people may be demotivated to accept the risk of driving absent manditory car insurance and drivers licenses, and may thereby be limited in the kind of progression that automobile usage may afford them. By providing the reasurance, they may be motivated to drive and thus progress thereby.

To me, it is a matter of stricking a productive balance. Too little reasurance is not good, and too much reasurance is not good either.

I think the government, on balance, and in terms of what is in the best interest of all parties, is doing a relatively good job (though certainly not perfect) in stricking that balance to the best of their abilities in regards to the issue under question--and this even given those, such as yourself, who may be willing (perhaps due to niavity) to assume complete risk in driving under conditions where insurance and licensing is not enforce.

I am not sure you correctly or fully understand the reason that homosexuality has been and still is a sin, regardless whether Love is supposedly governing the relationship or not (to my way of thinking, Christlike love is incompatible with homosexuality, and that, in large part, is why it is a sin.)

Why do you suppose homosexuality is a sin?

In what way is homosexual love a higher law?

I would agree with you that I don't understand the reason homosexuality is a sin. At the core, this still relates to the conversation I was having with Gaz (which I do hope he'll continue to respond to), in that, when The Spirit revealed it to me, I was revealed something very different than what you or Gaz where revealed. Perhaps, if Gaz can no longer answer that line of question, you could continue it? I'll recap my questions really quickly:

Given that we both followed Moroni's promise;
1.) How can it be that we both received startlingly different revelations?
2.) How can we tell which revelation, if any, is true? Gaz's response was to check it against the prophets of old. Do you agree?
3.) If Gaz's response is correct, which prophets? And how do we know? Gaz's response was to try Moroni's promise, but that brings us right back to the top of the list.

Why do I suppose homosexuality is a sin? Fear and ego. Fear of something strange, and an emotion one doesn't understand, and ego that someone might suggest that they too feel that way.

On a religious context, I haven't seen any statement that makes sense to me.

I would say Homosexual love is a higher law in much the same way that ANY love is a higher law -- it leads to treating other people kindly with a heart of service, and a motivation to bring themselves and yourselves a better life. Why do you say that homosexuality is not compatable with Christ-like love? What is christ-like love to you?

I prefer not to get side-tracked onto the stated discussion you are having with Gaz. And, my only interest here in speaking to the issue of homosexuality, is in how it relates to the fundamental issue of laws (or sins as defined by the law, and what constitutes a higher law).

As I understand it, spiritual laws are intended to enable mankind to rise above their carnal, sensual, and devilish nature, and become like God--i.e. take upon them the image and nature of Christ. The laws are graduated upwards so as to provide a path and a way to achieving that end. Sins, on the other hand, are designed to do just the opposite. They are intended to enslave mankind to carnal, sensual, and devilish desires, and further immerse them into their natural and ungodly state. They are also graduated downward so as to provide a path and a way of achieving its opposing end.

As I understand God the Father, through his Son, Jesus Christ, in the context of the heavenly family, I can see nothing of homosexuality in their nature, nor anything about homosexuality that would bring one closer to their natures. In fact, I see quite the opposite. I see homosexuality as unavoidably focused on carnal, sensuality, and devilishness, and a huge impediment to achieving godliness. That, to me, is why it is a sin.

Now, I understand how the merchants of homosexuality have attempted to obscure things by linking homosexuality with higher notions of love and commitment and pretenses to familial relationships. But, in truth, they are merely and illegitimately wrapping the natural man in spiritual clothing, rather than changing the natural man to a spiritual man. While Christ-like love for others, including those of one's same sex, is good and wonderful thing, sexual activities with one's same sex, is nevertheless carnal, sensual, devilish, degrading and ungodly. Infact, to think that one could, in Christ-like love, commit degrading and ungodly acts, is oxymoronic at best, and absurd at worst.

The same is not true of heterosexuality--that is, as long as it is done within the bounds of holy matrimony. In fact, appropriately engaging in the process of procreation, may rightly be viewed as approaching the godly nature and acts of divine creation. And, for a man and a woman to become one flesh through the birth of their child, positions them to take on the godly nature of father and mother.

If women are abiding the higher law of faith, and striving to perfect themselves as women (the height of which is I view as motherhood), then what need have they to be given the priesthood that, as I see it, is designed to enable men to perfect themselves as men (the height of which is fatherhood)? How, to your way of thinking, is shouldering mothers with fatherly responsibilities somehow a higher law?

What if the woman doesn't desire to be a mother?

In other words, what if a woman doesn't wish to rise to the full measure of her creation, and thereby become godly? Well, that is her agency. What isn't her agency is to become godly as a man--i.e. it is not within her perview as a woman to reach the pinnacle of fatherhood? And, thus, it doesn't make sense to endow her with the means and responsibility designed to achieve the pinnacle of fatherhood, any more than it makes sense to endow men with the means and responsibility of achieving the pinnacle of motherhood.

I suppose my problem with this statement is that of "Should." Men "Should" hold the priesthood, women "Should" be mothers. This leaves no room for personal desire. It again takes the responsibility of how to live your life out of your hands. It's already been decided, you just obey.

Actually, it isn't a "should" statement, but rather an acknowledgement of reality. A person's sex (male/female) is not a function of choice, but a function of reality. Viewing things in a way as to not recognize or acknowledge that reality, and pretend to make choices in defiance of that reality, is what would be problematic.

This does not eliminate choice altogether, it merely limits, unavoidably, the options to choose from. A women has a variety of options to choose from as a woman, which don't defy the reality of her womanhood. There are even instances where she, somewhat contrary to her nature, may be forced to assume some of the role and responsibilities of fatherhood (single mothers and women as primary providers in the home, come to mind).

However, as I understand things, it is God's will for women and men to achieve, to a godly degree, the full measure of their respective creations. Accordingly, he has set up his kingdom in a way the he sees as best achieving that end. To my mind, giving women the priesthood at this time will not do that, but may even run contrary to his objective. Who knows if that will always be the case?

Actually, it is the people who are yet incapable of handling "special circumstances", and the laws and means of governance are there to help them manage what they are capable of handling, to the degree they are as a people capable of handling, and to also enable them to grow such that they may be able to handle more.

You seem intent on subjecting mankind to higher laws, and burdening them with the increase responsibility and accountability associated therewith, which they may lack the capacity to abide at this time. To me, that would be unmerciful and unjust--even as it would be to hold a kindergartener accountable to know trigonometry.

But why are the people still incapable of handling special circumstances? I believe it is a direct cause of the laws dulling their desire and ability to think about the special circumstances.

The reason they are incapable is, obviously, because they haven't grown and developed to that point. They inherently lack the ability to think about "special circumstance" (in other words, some may be having trouble grasping the basics of simple addition and subtraction, and cannot be expected to understand trigonometry). They are not somehow mysteriously endowed with the necessary knowledge and ability by merely subjecting them to a higher law (in other words, kindergartners will not grasp the notion of trigonometry simply by subjecting them to trigonometry). It takes requisite growth and development, from one level of law to the next and the next and the next...(from all levels of basic math, to algebra, calculus, and then trigonometry.)

I am talking here about seemingly indisputable notions of pedagogy and epistemology. So, I am not sure why you can't see and readily understand them.

And you're very, very correct in my intention to "burden" people with responsibility and accountability. I have faith that, if given the challenge, with no safety nets, people will rise to the challenge, take their responsibility upon themselves, and be much freer and happier because of it. Freedom comes at a cost of responsibility. As soon as you give that responsibility to others, you become bonded. And each bond is comforting, because it brings safety. Until you're in a nice, comforting box, with no room to move, nothing to see, nothing to do, until you start to take that responsibility back.

Again, it is a matter of balance. Moving people beyond their comfort zone a bit, may be beneficial, while moving them beyond their capacity to understand and abide a higher law, would be unmerciful and foolish. Burdening people with a bit more responsibility (challenging those who have mastered simple addition and subtractions by subjecting them to simple multiplication and division), may be appropriate; whereas, burdening then with responsibility and accountability prior to their developing to the point to which they may adequately shoulder that responsibility and accountability (such as shouldering kindergartners with the burden and responsibility of trigonometry). is, again, unmerciful and foolish.

Your trigonometry analogy is flawed. The current system of trigonometry is based on our rather basic arithmetic. But trigonometry itself is merely an understanding of the relationship between items. You're calculating trigonometry every time you walk. Every time you bring a glass up to your lips to take a drink. Every time you catch a ball, you're making the trigonometric calculations without even thinking about it.

It is not the analogy that is flawwed, but the way in which you have misapplied it (seemingly with the intent not to understand the point of the anology). While walking and throwing a ball can be explained through trigonometry, people are not making trigonomic calculations when they walk and catch balls. Seeing the length of a sidewalk is not the same thing as mathematically measuring the sidewalk. Visually guessing the arch and speed of a ball is not the same as measuring the radius, tangents, sines, cosines, slopes and whatever.

Besides, the point is about the disparity between knowledge/ability and responsibility/accountability. The greater the disparity, the less capable and more incapable one may be in meeting the responsibility/accountability. Failing to factor in the disparity can lend itself to unmerciful and foolish and counterproductive circumstances (such as like shouldering a kindergarner with trigonometry expectations, or expecting those who have difficulty paying a full tithe to fully and understandably live the law of sacrifice).

The same can be said for responsibility. It will take a learning curve up front, and it will be hard. Just like riding a bike or learning to walk. And there will be mistakes along the way. But if you fall and scrape your knee, do you stop trying to ride a bike? Do you make a law against falling over? No, you kiss the boo-boo and get back on the bike. The reward is freedom, and is definitely worth it.

But, would it make sense to take a child who is just learning to ride a bike, and put them behind the yoke of an f-16 fighter jet and expect them to fly?

I see your point about working towards mastery of a given law, but do you understand my point about the wisdom and mercy in working towards mastery of the highest laws in incremental steps (via mastery of lower laws towards mastery of increasingly higher laws)? Do you see how, if the disparity between one's given knowledge/ability and responsibility/accountability is too great, expectation for meeting the responsibility/accountability may be a recipe for disaster?

The way to learn is not through understanding the laws. You can sit there and study trigonometry all day, but will it teach you how to throw a ball? The way to learn is through experimentation and failure. It's something you have to try, it's something you have to THINK about. But if you keep the training wheels on, then you'll never continue. You'll fall over again once you take the wheels off. One will never be ready for the higher laws until they give up the lower ones and just start living the higher laws immediately, with no hesitation, and no safety net.

If that is the extent of your understanding of training, then please don't go into the career of teaching--particularly not at the elementary grade levels. It ignores not a few of the fundamentals of effective instruction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hi keene,

You may be right about this being a difference of "revelation", or as I may call it, a difference in paradigms (both on a spiritual as well as a secular level.)

We differ radically in terms of our respective perceptions of the nature of God and godliness, the nature and purpose of laws, and a host of other things related thereto. We even differ radically on what constitutes effective instruction.

As such, I am not sure there is enough of an overlap in beliefs to make discussing this issue meaningful and productive in terms of convincing each other either way, though it may have some value in better understanding differing points of view.

Assuming that we approach this discussion with the latter intent in mind, perhaps you can help me understand your perspective at an even more basic level.

Let's look at how you may view the role of a parent in raising a child from birth. Beyond providing the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter), do you think it best to leave the child to its own devices in learning to make its own way in the world? In other words, would you suggest that the parent refrain from making rules and having consequences for breaking the rules, like when the child should eat, what it should eat, when it should go to bed, whether it should play and run in the street, how it should treat others, etc.?

Would you suggest that the parent leave their child to learn freely on its own about the alphabet, how to read, basic math skills, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keene]

Hi keene,

You may be right about this being a difference of "revelation", or as I may call it, a difference in paradigms (both on a spiritual as well as a secular level.)

We differ radically in terms of our respective perceptions of the nature of God and godliness, the nature and purpose of laws, and a host of other things related thereto. We even differ radically on what constitutes effective instruction.

As such, I am not sure there is enough of an overlap in beliefs to make discussing this issue meaningful and productive in terms of convincing each other either way, though it may have some value in better understanding differing points of view.

LOL, I was just about to say the same thing. With our dramatically different paradigms, our two paths just don't mix. It's funny, because starting from our individual assumptions, both of our respective paths make sense.

It is for this purpose that I tried to bring back the questions I asked Gazalem, because I think they question our assumptions from which our respective viewpoints arise. If we can work it out to a core assumption, and then test that assumption, perhaps we can come to an agreeance.

Assuming that we approach this discussion with the latter intent in mind, perhaps you can help me understand your perspective at an even more basic level.

Let's look at how you may view the role of a parent in raising a child from birth. Beyond providing the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter), do you think it best to leave the child to its own devices in learning to make its own way in the world? In other words, would you suggest that the parent refrain from making rules and having consequences for breaking the rules, like when the child should eat, what it should eat, when it should go to bed, whether it should play and run in the street, how it should treat others, etc.?

Would you suggest that the parent leave their child to learn freely on its own about the alphabet, how to read, basic math skills, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would like to continue this discussion on our differing interpretation of the laws, but please, lets continue the discussion on our core assuptions or revelations as well. That is where I hope to find something of real value.

My personal concept on how a parent should behave towards their child is still in its infancy. I'm still doing a LOT of research on teaching methods, and on the nature of the brain, and the way it develops. If I can use the natural momentum in my efforts, then the speed and efficiency of growth will be greatly improved. My understanding, so far, is that kids naturally seek the approval of others -- therefor the best option would be to make my approval and disapproval well known. Ever have one of those moments where you did something, and your parents didn't punish you, they just gave you that look of disappointment? Wasn't that such a stronger motivation to change than a punishment?

Right now, my plan is when my child does something I don't approve, I will say in a very authoritative tone "HEY! Why did you do that?" I have observed children when this happens from their parents. They look ashamed and try to apologize, but then the parents refuse the apology and ask again "Why did you do that?" The secret is to not give up in asking why. Be patient but authorative. The child will need time to develop a sentance, but they WILL think about why, and give you an answer. I've seen this behavior in children. I've also seen, much more often, parents get impatient and instead of waiting for the reason why, they give up and say "just don't do that." Then the child runs off, assured that the approval of their parents will stick even when they do bad.

Of course, I've not considered being a parent before. These issues were raised in my mind only recently, when I began to discuss children with my fiance. I want to study much more, and refine this to a much better degree.

As for schooling the child -- I think the best course of action is to encourage and reward curiosity. A child always wants to learn. They want to be like daddy. They're curious. Reward their curiosity by playing with them while learning. Teach them math with some ice cream. Make learning fun and enjoyable, so they want to continue when you're not there. I had this belief when growing up, and I taught myself trig by 8th grade. I was reading full novels in kindergarten. People WANT to learn, but they don't always want to be taught. Especially since the current teaching methods don't match the way the brain naturally wants to learn.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hi keene,

You may be right about this being a difference of "revelation", or as I may call it, a difference in paradigms (both on a spiritual as well as a secular level.)

We differ radically in terms of our respective perceptions of the nature of God and godliness, the nature and purpose of laws, and a host of other things related thereto. We even differ radically on what constitutes effective instruction.

As such, I am not sure there is enough of an overlap in beliefs to make discussing this issue meaningful and productive in terms of convincing each other either way, though it may have some value in better understanding differing points of view.

LOL, I was just about to say the same thing. With our dramatically different paradigms, our two paths just don't mix. It's funny, because starting from our individual assumptions, both of our respective paths make sense.



It is for this purpose that I tried to bring back the questions I asked Gazalem, because I think they question our assumptions from which our respective viewpoints arise. If we can work it out to a core assumption, and then test that assumption, perhaps we can come to an agreeance.

Assuming that we approach this discussion with the latter intent in mind, perhaps you can help me understand your perspective at an even more basic level.

Let's look at how you may view the role of a parent in raising a child from birth. Beyond providing the necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter), do you think it best to leave the child to its own devices in learning to make its own way in the world? In other words, would you suggest that the parent refrain from making rules and having consequences for breaking the rules, like when the child should eat, what it should eat, when it should go to bed, whether it should play and run in the street, how it should treat others, etc.?

Would you suggest that the parent leave their child to learn freely on its own about the alphabet, how to read, basic math skills, etc.?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would like to continue this discussion on our differing interpretation of the laws, but please, lets continue the discussion on our core assuptions or revelations as well. That is where I hope to find something of real value.

My personal concept on how a parent should behave towards their child is still in its infancy. I'm still doing a LOT of research on teaching methods, and on the nature of the brain, and the way it develops. If I can use the natural momentum in my efforts, then the speed and efficiency of growth will be greatly improved. My understanding, so far, is that kids naturally seek the approval of others -- therefor the best option would be to make my approval and disapproval well known. Ever have one of those moments where you did something, and your parents didn't punish you, they just gave you that look of disappointment? Wasn't that such a stronger motivation to change than a punishment?

Right now, my plan is when my child does something I don't approve, I will say in a very authoritative tone "HEY! Why did you do that?" I have observed children when this happens from their parents. They look ashamed and try to apologize, but then the parents refuse the apology and ask again "Why did you do that?" The secret is to not give up in asking why. Be patient but authorative. The child will need time to develop a sentance, but they WILL think about why, and give you an answer. I've seen this behavior in children. I've also seen, much more often, parents get impatient and instead of waiting for the reason why, they give up and say "just don't do that." Then the child runs off, assured that the approval of their parents will stick even when they do bad.

Of course, I've not considered being a parent before. These issues were raised in my mind only recently, when I began to discuss children with my fiance. I want to study much more, and refine this to a much better degree.

As for schooling the child -- I think the best course of action is to encourage and reward curiosity. A child always wants to learn. They want to be like daddy. They're curious. Reward their curiosity by playing with them while learning. Teach them math with some ice cream. Make learning fun and enjoyable, so they want to continue when you're not there. I had this belief when growing up, and I taught myself trig by 8th grade. I was reading full novels in kindergarten. People WANT to learn, but they don't always want to be taught. Especially since the current teaching methods don't match the way the brain naturally wants to learn.

keene,

Your quest toward acheiving a state of authoritative parenting couldn't be more right on!

This here that you said: " As for schooling the child -- I think the best course of action is to encourage and reward curiosity. A child always wants to learn. They want to be like daddy. They're curious. Reward their curiosity by playing with them while learning. Teach them math with some ice cream. Make learning fun and enjoyable, so they want to continue when you're not there. I had this belief when growing up, and I taught myself trig by 8th grade. I was reading full novels in kindergarten. People WANT to learn, but they don't always want to be taught. Especially since the current teaching methods don't match the way the brain naturally wants to learn."

My gosh, you are a smart man, keene. There is no coincidence that young children love to play. It is how they learn through experimentation, exploration, of materials and in their relationships with people. Ice cream for example, can provide opportunities to learn science concepts such as hot/cold, solid/liquid, the process of melting, soft/hard, you name it. What about math? Less/More, How many cones do we need? And later quantities such as pints/quarts/cups etc. Self concept? Being able to make choices, being involved in preparing ice cream for others, sharing what one has with others. Social Studies, going to the ice cream shop and observing people at work. How much does an ice cream cone cost? How much money do we have? Fine motor development: Scooping the ice cream. The list of learning opportunities is simply endless with regards to ice cream alone.

Your future children already have a smart Dad! You are smart enough to see the value of play in a child's life and the benefit to a child and to yourself, as their partner.

I applaud you!

Jersey Girl

[_Mephitus]

I agree with Keene and Jersey Girl.

The learning process is best taught through experimentation, thought, consideration, and a natural support of occuring curiousness. Through out school, i was plagued with a difficulty in following classes in the style that was traditionaly taught. But when i was given a chance to explore things in my own way and examine all the information at my disposal. I was able to learn infinately faster. One learns by doing, failing, and gaining experience. not by being told and merely placating the act of simple forced obedience.

All through grade school and junoir high. I had many problems with making the grade. By the time i hit highschool, i had learned how i processed information. And basicly sat in the back of class reading and progressing at my own pace, much faster than what the teachers and other students would do. When allowed to progress on my own, i excelled.

A similar tie can be used when considering "higher law". I know plenty of people who are bogged down by the semantics of low ideals and small things that are placed onto them. But when it comes to the higher aspects of human nature, they are the best people i know. I would say that having everything available and allowing people to progress and learn at the pace they can best handle, would grow mankind with the best intentions and understanding of said laws.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sono_hito: The learning process is best taught through experimentation, thought, consideration, and a natural support of occuring curiousness. Through out school, i was plagued with a difficulty in following classes in the style that was traditionaly taught. But when i was given a chance to explore things in my own way and examine all the information at my disposal. I was able to learn infinately faster. One learns by doing, failing, and gaining experience. not by being told and merely placating the act of simple forced obedience.

Jersey Girl: I would re-word the statement I bolded to say: one learns by doing, failing, re-evaluating, doing, gaining experience, doing and constructing knowledge as the process continues. And now I'll put the damper on the whole picture...so long as our educational systems rely on a relationship between "performance accountability" and "funding" ($$$) the needs of the individual learner will never be addressed in the fashion that you suggest, Sono_hito. However much I would like to think they could. Best not to allow myself to be tempted to continue along this path, I'll rattle on for another 50 posts.

[_Mephitus]

Jersey Girl i have so many issues with the current education system, we could make an entire thread on just that.


And i don't even have wife/kids!

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl i have so many issues with the current education system, we could make an entire thread on just that.


And i don't even have wife/kids!

You don't have to! You are presumably a tax paying member of society and in my estimation a good observer. The children in today's classrooms are going to be your doctor, your dentist, your clergy person, your (please help me from ranting on!) politicians. Standardized testing, teaching to the test instead of the child/student...am I ringing any bells? The bells should be alarms. Take a look at your states requirements for teachers. Does the teacher need to have a degree in the subject that they're teaching? Best not to research that, it'll make your hair stand on end. What schools get the best funding? Is it related to performance? On what is the performance based? Standardized teating, teaching to the test instead of the child/student. Has the student learned anything besides how to pass the test?

You tell me, my friend, you tell me.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

OMG, somebody stop me. The society that we live in is highly competitive in nature. School districts compete for the almighty federal and state tax dollars. How do we measure success? You guessed it, those standardized tests. Instead of allowing qualified teachers to measure student's learning, we've got unqualified teachers (not across the board mind you, I'm generalizing for the sheer purpose of ranting) placed in classrooms where the student:teacher ratio is insane, preparing students to take tests instead of for life and for the life of me, I'm not sure this Catch 22 can ever be reversed, revamped or replaced.

I see some indications that my local school districts are from the bottom up, just beginning to examine the benefit of what is called "authentic assessment". Is there possible light at the end of the tunnel? I see no reason why authentic assessment can't be applied through upper grades. Well, we'll see...

Jersey Girl