quote:...I would have pointed to my manual and the scriptures and gospel quotes I'd used in class. I would have explained that I had prayerful prepared my lesson and was striving to fill my calling. I would have reminded you that you raised your hand to sustain me in that calling and suggested that if you felt you could no longer do that, you talk to the Bishop about it.
Aha. Well, this is completely off the topic. I would have pointed out that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained [except by] persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge..."
Oh-- did you think that D&C 121 was only for priesthood holders?
If you think the mere acceptance of a calling entitles you to all activities you decide to take within the circumference of your call, you have sorely misunderstood the doctrines relating to this portion of the gospel.
quote:The part you don't seem to be getting Scott is that you aren't the only one who has a sacred responsibility toward your children.
Are you arguing that your "sacred responsibility" gives you insight into people's children that their parents cannot have, Rabbit? Or that your "sacred responsibility" allows you to override the wishes of a normal parent?
If you are, then we can continue debating this.
If you are not, then we're probably just fussing at each other's choice of words out of mutual disdain.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I agree with Scott that there any decent parent will be privy to information and observations that a teacher simply doesn't have access to. At the same time, a teacher will almost certainly possess information that parent doesn't have with regards to teaching techniques, styles of learning, and sheer volume of experience teaching children, if not your specific child.
It's a lot like going to see a doctor. You're the one who knows what hurts and what doesn't feel good, and you probably know your body better than your physician, but the doctor's the one with the expertise to tell you what all that means, and advise on a course of treatment.
I agree with this.
As a teacher, I had way too many cases of "my angel would never do such a thing" to believe that parents always know best. However, even when I thought the parent was wrong, I certainly did my best to respect that THEY were the parent.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: MattP: I don't see how that's complicated at all, nor do I see how what you described conflicts with what katharina said. The teacher has a responsibility to the child, and she has fulfilled it if she does what you said. But that's where the responsibility ends. I believe that's what katharina is saying.
The Rabbit is saying that parents aren't the only ones with responsibilities to their children; others are saying, in a nutshell, that parental responsibility trumps the other ones.
Then perhaps people are talking past each other here, because there seems to be a lot of unnecessary heat in this thread around this topic.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends. There are many well meaning parents who will deny up and down that their child has a learning disability. As a result of their denial, the child may not get the resources they need. A teacher could have all sorts of knowledge of learning disabilities a parent might not have. A perfectly well meaning parent could think their child is being lazy and not applying themselves instead of knowing it's a problem.
How about in the extreme case of a parent who is in the KKK or is a neo-Nazi and teaches that non-whites are inferior? It isn't abusive, but it can be harmful in the long run and a case of parents being a bit... wrong.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you don't seem to be getting is that the parents' sacred responsibility trumps the teacher's every time.
Even in the church. ESPECIALLY in the church, where the center of teaching the gospel is supposed to be the family. Church on Sunday is an organizer and a facilitator, but not a replacement and not the first location of gospel knowledge.
I have to disagree. Not with the idea that the family should be the center of gospel teaching, but because I understand the concept of stewardship. The parent has stewardship for his children but the teacher has stewardship for teaching the Sunday school class. As a sunday school teacher my responsibility is to God and the children not to the parents. I am responsible to teach the children correct principles as long as they are in my class. There isn't any question about whose responsibility trumps whose. The responsibility of the parents is different (and certainly greater) than mine but I can't be excused from teaching correct principle in my Sunday School class or from following the inspiration I receive for teaching that class (which I am uniquely qualified to receive) because the parents disapprove.
In an ideal world, my filling my responsibility would support and help the parents in filling their responsibility and there would never be a question. But this isn't an ideal world. Both parents and teachers make mistakes. Both parent and teacher should be sustaining each other in their callings and respect each others sacred stewardship.
If as a sunday school teacher I was helping the kid do something his parents disapproved of (say covering for him so he could spend time with friends his parents disapproved of), I'd be intruding on the parents stewardship. But in the same way if the parent tries to tell me what I should or should not teach in the Sunday School class, they are intruding on my stewardship.
If a parent really objects to what I'm teaching in Sunday school, its certainly within their stewardship to go to the Bishop and discuss the issue or to pull their kids out of the class. Just as a parent who abuses his child can have his stewardship for the child revoked, if I'm a bad enough teacher I could loose my stewardship for the class.
But what I'm saying is that a teacher who is acting in good faith to fulfill their stewardship but makes mistakes along the way deserves to be cut the same slack we cut parents who are acting in good faith but make some mistakes.
As a teacher, I'd be out of line if I thought I knew more about a kid than the parents knew. But I could very well know something about the kid that his parents don't know. And I almost certainly know more about what I'm teaching than the parent knows.
I understand rivka's annoyance with an overly pushy teacher, but I hope she also appreciates having a teacher who is concerned about her daughter. I hope she is willing to listen to learn anything that teacher might know that she doesn't. In the end, of course the decision must be rivka's and I would hope that the teacher, having now voiced her concerns, will respect rivka's decision even if she disagrees with it. Just as I hope that in the end rivka cuts the pushy teacher some slack and appreciates her input.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situation seems obvious to me: the correct way to deal with someone else's child on a serious matter has to involve their parents, such as in Rabbit's anecdote where the kids in her class were being taught something that was clearly incorrect.
Assuming Rabbit is correct about the parents teaching their children incorrectly, why is it better to keep silent and let the ignorance continue as opposed to addressing it?
Rabbit, what is supposed to happen in this situation? If their parents are teaching them so badly about our faith in one area, it stands to reason that they're probably screwing up badly in another area, too. What happens about the next thing those parents screw up? Are the children supposed to come to you for the straight scoop?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a sunday school teacher my responsibility is to God and the children not to the parents. I am responsible to teach the children correct principles as long as they are in my class.
So your responsibility (and thus your authority) extends only to the limits of the bounds of your class? Isn't that a very reactive way to deal with a serious problem?
Given the limits you describe of your own authority, it really does seem like your solution to this problem is to correct these kids as long as they're in your class, and take it no further. It's a very poor solution, because I very much doubt that none of those kids ever spoke to anyone else about the time that their teacher said-despite polite phrasing-"Your parents are wrong about this."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not because with the idea that the family should be teaching the gospel, but because I understand the concept of stewardship.
I also understand the concept of stewardship. The parents' STILL trumps the teacher's. The basic unit of the church is the family. It isn't the Sunday School class - all those classes are auxiliaries.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I understand rivka's annoyance with an overly pushy teacher, but I hope she also appreciates having a teacher who is concerned about her daughter. I hope she is willing to listen to learn anything that teacher might know that she doesn't. In the end, of course the decision must be rivka's and I would hope that the teacher, having now voiced her concerns, will respect rivka's decision even if she disagrees with it. Just as I hope that in the end rivka cuts the pushy teacher some slack and appreciates her input.
Did I appreciate the teacher's concern and her motivation for the call? Definitely. She's a lovely person, she cares for my daughter very much, and I am very glad she has been my daughter's teacher.
Did I appreciate that even after she had expressed her concerns -- twice -- and I had explained that what she was suggesting was not an option -- twice -- AND she had admitted to not knowing as much about the situation as she had thought, that she kept pushing anyway?
posted
No katharina, I don't think you understand stewardship.
If a mother comes to me and tells me (for example), that I shouldn't teach a lesson from the manual because of her child's special issue (say she asks me not to teach a lesson on "eternal families" because their family hasn't been sealed and the child is really sensitive about it). As a teacher, I would certainly listen to her concerns and consider them. But in the end, I'm the one who has stewardship for what's taught in the class and I am the one responsible to make that decision. I am the only one who has the right to revelation from God about what should be taught in the class and she should support my decision.
Her responsibility is for her child, mine is for what is taught in the class. Hers can't trump mine -- they are different stewardships. If in the end I choose to teach the lesson, the parent still has the responsibility to decide whether or not her child should attend the class. If she I think she is a normal healthy mother, I will respect her decision and support it just as I expect her to respect my decision and support it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do understand stewardship just fine, and I'm starting to think that you prefer being insulting rather than granting that we have different views on this.
I do not disagree with you because you have superior information. I disagree with you because I have a different view of the role of teachers within the church, and I think that the parents' rights and responsibilities trump the teachers' every time.
The way you are acting towards me when I disagree with you is not helping your case when you say that you know better than the parents what to teach.
A normal, healthy mother, when she learns that what she considers to be wrong doctrine has been taught in Sunday School, will reinforce the correct doctrine to her child and explain that while the gospel is perfect, clearly the church and the people within it are not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you believe your stewardship is served by keeping silent about the thing with the parents teaching incorrect doctrine, Rabbit?
quote:Since you posted, I've reconsidered and still can't think of anyway I could do that which was respectful to both the parents and the kid.
To be clear, this smacks of excuse, not reason. Your stewardship includes telling a teenager, "Your parents are wrong," but not letting the parents know about this conflict...to avoid 'disrespecting them'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a parent and this thread has given me some things to think about.
My first gut reaction was that the opening thesis and several of the parents commenting are taking everything way too seriously. But, honestly, I'm impressed by the amount of thought & effort people are evidently putting into parenting, and my initial reaction might be partially defensive.
Still. Even if I try to discount my desire to defend my comparatively lax parenting style, I think that what I'm seeing is a sort of insistence on complete, unchallenged, and omnipresent parental authority. If you are convinced that you absolutely know what is best for your child, and that you can succeed in guiding your children's behavior as desired, I guess it's a rational choice to parent your kids this way. It does not strike me as a humble or realistic attitude, however.
It does seem a bit difficult to believe that some parents have the combination of insight & competence that they claim to have. Personally, I don't think I could ever achieve that kind of confidence, but I'll admit that is partly because I'm no saint and I don't know any. I wonder if being more open to input from outside sources might be a good thing even (or especially) for people who are pretty sure they already know better.
What's a more practical consideration, in my opinion, is the effect of strict insistence on your authority. There's a widespread cultural meme that strict parenting can lead to extreme rebellion. I don't think it's always true, but I think there's a kernel of useful truth in there. That perhaps there's a threshold of rigidity in parenting, beyond which it fails to produce the desired outcome and instead is counter productive. There are clearly other factors - the same two parents can raise some of the kids just as planned, while others decide to pursue a radically different lifestyle. I do know of several examples close to me where I believe that the parents were too sure of themselves and the "right" way to do things, and it blinded them to their childs real needs & character, and the end result was misery.
Things like making sure that an illegitimate surrogate never has access to the child again seems overly rigid to me. It seems to imply a closed worldview wherein other points of view are not tolerated. Perhaps I read too much into this?
That's where I'm sitting: Half awed at the evident parenting prowess, half put off by how sure some people are of themselves, and half worried that there's some divorce between practical reality and these ideals. I know, that's three halves.
I need to digest this some more. I hope I don't give offense.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If a mother comes to me and tells me (for example), that I shouldn't teach a lesson from the manual because of her child's special issue (say she asks me not to teach a lesson on "eternal families" because their family hasn't been sealed and the child is really sensitive about it).
But this isn't what happened. This is a straw man.
Yes, it's true that you, not the parent, have a responsibility to teach the child the gospel in that class. But the parent has the greater responsibility to teach the child, and that's what you seem to be arguing against.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:hat you can succeed in guiding your children's behavior as desired
That seems like a jump - no parent has said they are able to control their children's behavior. What they have said is that they know best what rules their children are to live under, and they don't want other adults undermining their rules.
Nobody has said anything about the children themselves undermining the rules. That's an entirely different conversation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I agree with this.
As a teacher, I had way too many cases of "my angel would never do such a thing" to believe that parents always know best. However, even when I thought the parent was wrong, I certainly did my best to respect that THEY were the parent. [/QB]
Amen! A chorus of hallelujahs! Amen!
Will all respect to Scott R and other parents who insist that they are the experts on their child's education, I have to express my agreement with ersomniac and rivka.
When I have an issue to overcome with students (behavioral, curricular, whatever...), I'll present my understanding of the issue to the parents. I make every effort to have concrete data on what is going on. If the issues are behavioral, I demonstrate documentation of dates, times, and details of what occurred and what my response was to the behavior. If the issue is related to student learning, I have work samples, audio recordings of their playing, etc. available to demonstrate what the concern is.
Then, and here's the important part, I ask the parents what they think might be causing the issue or how they might work with me in fixing the issue.
If they have a response that I agree with, we go with that. If they have no response or if their response seems (to me) to be unsuited to what I have observed with other students in similar circumstances, I present my side. I do NOT do this by telling them what should be done with their child, as this belittles the parent's responsibilities to and knowledge of their child. Rather, I present my idea in terms of "this has worked well for other children in similar circumstances" and I am careful to leave the door wide open for input from the parents as to what does and does not apply to their own child.
This whole process can so quickly fall apart, however, if the parent is simply not interested in the opinions of anyone else who has an obligation to the education or caretaking of their child. I grant without equivocation that the parent's obligations are the greatest. I submit that the parent does not always have the benefit of the perspective of others (such as the perspective that comes from teaching hundreds of students, the perspective of being a professional in the field of education, etc.), and that it is advisable for parents -- and anyone, really -- to take these different perspectives into account in everyday interactions.
That being said, I can understand how parents can sometimes react with blindness to other's perspectives, given the enormous investment, care and concern they (very rightly) have for their children. Thus, I strive and pray for patience in all of my dealings with the so-called 'unreasonable parents'.
Regarding the statement of professionalism being represented by a mere piece of paper (I apologize if I am mis-quoting the statement that was made to this effect; I cannot remember who made comments about this):
The degree is indeed of little worth. So, too, are the experiences gained from most teacher education programs from which at least a modicum of experience, knowledge, and skills are gained in the process of earning that little piece of paper. But please do not forget to take into account the years and years of experience that many teachers have working with thousands of students in a given career. While you as a parent may know the specifics about your child, the teacher has the vantage point of knowing about general trends, about what typically works and doesn't work. When a teacher and a parent work together to prescribe the educational experience is when the student has the best outcome. If either party refuses to comply, the outcome can be disastrous.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think we are talking past each other.
quote:A normal, healthy mother, when she learns that what she considers to be wrong doctrine has been taught in Sunday School, will reinforce the correct doctrine to her child and explain that while the gospel is perfect, clearly the church and the people within it are not.
Fully agreed. But now what should a faithful sunday school teacher do when she learns that a member of the class has been taught something they consider wrong doctrine at home?
It seems to me that you are saying supporting whatever the parents have taught, trumps my responsibility to teach correct principles. If that's not what you are saying, please clarify what you mean when you say the responsibility of the parent trumps my responsibility as a Sunday School teacher.
The way I see it the parents responsibilities to the child don't trump my responsibilities, they are different from my responsibilities. It is my responsibility (among other things) to teach the child correct principles in the Sunday School class. That responsibility is mine alone. It isn't the parents responsibility to make sure I teach correct principles -- its mine. I also feel I have a responsibility to encourage the kids in the class to honor their parents and try not to undermine parents.
But if a teenager in my sunday school class backs me against the wall and asks, so whose right the prophet or my parents, my responsibility to teach correct principles trumps my responsibility to support the parents.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BandoCommando, I've got no problems with anything that you've said.
I'm not an education expert.
I am an expert in my children.
I've got no problem with listening to teachers' advice about my children when I trust that teacher's opinion.
When a teacher resorts to credentialism ("I've got a degree!" or "I've been called and sustained!") in order to co-opt my trust, she gets the opposite.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I respect what you're saying and agree with much of it, but like Rabbit you're losing me on the idea that the professionalism of teachers (and others) doesn't amount to anything.
Please clarify what you mean, so I'm not misunderstanding you, I really don't want to jump to conclusions.
As much as I know my kids, and as good a parent as I try to be, (admitting, of course, that often I fall short) I do recognize some people have professionalism and experience that outweighs mine. I once believed my daughter should not do something in gymnastics. I didn't think she was capable of handling the emotional burden of trying a new skill in competition, which she hadn't mastered, knowing how disappointed she would be if she fell. I was basing it on years of parenting this child and knowing how she took things when she felt like she'd let people down. Better to do a safer skill, and have her happy and content at the end of the meet than devastated, was my view. After all, this isn't the Olympics, it's recreational competitive gymnastics, and it's supposed to be fun.
The coach cornered me and told me to let her do it - and to keep a long story short, I went with his recommendation and it turned out great - even though she fell. I was looking at her with a parents' eye - and I know my child better than anyone else in the world - but I'm not a coach.. He is - and with 25 years of experience coaching young girls he knew exactly what my daughter could and could not handle better than I did.
Turns out being asked to perform the difficult move was what she wanted - she cared more that the coach trusted in her and believed in her, and he told her after she fell that at least she was brave enough to try - and that comment meant more to her than winning the gold medal would have. He knew that - he drew on his experience and his knowledge of coaching and his observations of my child and he knew - better than me - what would matter to her as a competitor.
Coaches, teachers, Sunday School leaders - they generally want the best for our kids too. They know things, and see things, and understand things we may not. It's worth listening to them, and not dismissing them as inconsequential, just because you're the parent.
Edit: Wow, y'all posted a lot of stuff since I started this one. Scott, I see you now saying that you mostly object to falling back on credentials only - and I can't say I disagree with that. Therefore, this post is largely meaningless but I'm leaving it because it took me a long time to type. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The coach cornered me and told me to let her do it - and to keep a long story short, I went with his recommendation and it turned out great - even though she fell. I was looking at her with a parents' eye - and I know my child better than anyone else in the world - but I'm not a coach..
But he didn't override you on this. He discussed it with you, but it still ultimately came down to being YOUR decision as the parent, not his. You, at some point, agreed with him to let her do it.
But that was between you and him, not your and her, or him overriding you directly to her.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't have a problem with what you said, either. The point is trusting the coach or teacher or whatever.
I *did* point this out on the first page--
quote:Of course there are many factors involved-- do I trust the teacher as a professional? Do I trust her as a person? Am I evaluating my own competencies without bias?
Same post as my professionalism rant-- which maybe I should have called credentialism in hindsight.
Have I explained myself?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Because it's stupid, and teaches kids that 'stupid' is okay.
They're also not allowed to use the word 'stupid.'
EDIT: For the record, they're not allowed to watch much television at all. Any show where the main characters make a habit of being disrespectful to peers, where adults are treated like villains, or where boy-girl relationships at an age younger than 16 are encouraged or seen as normal, is not allowed.
So, basically, we don't watch the Disney channel after the pre-school programs go off. Mostly we watch Discovery or Animal Planet.
Amen to that. I don't have kids, but you've pretty much nailed down part of the parenting philosophy I plan to use some day when I do have them.
I agree with whoever said they're glad you're raising kids in this world.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a teacher resorts to credentialism ("I've got a degree!" or "I've been called and sustained!") in order to co-opt my trust, she gets the opposite.
Scott, How is "I'm the parent" any different as an argument for why your right than "I've got a degree" or "I've been called and sustained" ?
"I spend two hours every day doing homework with my child", is a good reason to believe you know something about your child's learning styles and abilities. "I his parent", is not.
Being his parent, gives you the responsibility to make certain decisions. If what you are arguing about is the right to make those decisions and to have those decisions followed by other adults, then no one here (that I'm aware of is arguing with you).
What I've been arguing all along is that other people also have responsibilities for your child, although these responsibilities are much more limited than yours. If they try to usurp your responsibility they are in the wrong, but so are you if you try to usurp theirs.
Take Belle's example. In the end, it was Belle's right as parent to decide whether or not her daughter did the difficult skill. But if she had chosen to go against the coaches wishes, it would have been within the rights of the coach to not have her compete at all or to have her leave the team entirely. The coach has responsibilities to the team and the girls on it. He can't just surrender those responsibilities to the parents anymore than the parents can surrender their responsibilities to him.
If his argument was "she has to do the skill because I'm the Coach", then "I'm the Coach" is an inappropriate argument. If he the decision was "She can't stay on the team unless she does the skill", then "I'm the coach" is a perfectly legitimate argument because as the coach he has the right and responsibility to make that choice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I was all annoyed at what Scott R. said about teachers and professionalism at first. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's basically my philosophy as a teacher, too. I think all of the books I recommend for kids are appropriate, but I recognize that--particularly at the ages of my students, 12-13--if the parent disagrees with me, then the parent is right. Period. There are definitely times when I have seen a particular kid with a particular book, and have said, "Hmmm. Given what I know about you and your family, you might want to pick a different book"--whereas I might have given the same book to a different student.
If it seems that a students believes something incorrect that has been taught by a parent, my response would probably be (and has been on occasion) something like--"Well, here's why some people think X." And leave it at that, or suggest that the student talk to the parent. Depends on the issue, of course!
Edited to add quote so post made sense
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a phrase in our house. It's "that is not our rule."
My daughter is now almost four. We are beginning to regularly run into kids who are allowed to do things she is not allowed to do (for instance, my kids are not allowed to climb up the slides at the park, only go down.) When we see kids doing things she is not allowed to do, she will sometimes say "they can do it, why can't I?" And the response is, "That is not our rule." If it needs more expansion, "Different families have different rules. This is our rule, and you need to follow our rules because you are part of our family." It's gotten to the point where I tell her not to do something she sees someone else doing, and she asks, "That is not our rule?" And I say, "Nope. Our rule is [restate the rule]." "Okay."
It works for us so far.
I will refrain from an opinion on the whole class thing since she's not old enough that I've encountered that yet. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aha. Well, this is completely off the topic. I would have pointed out that no power or influence can or ought to be maintained [except by] persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge..."
Oh-- did you think that D&C 121 was only for priesthood holders?
If you think the mere acceptance of a calling entitles you to all activities you decide to take within the circumference of your call, you have sorely misunderstood the doctrines relating to this portion of the gospel.
And if you think that's what I said, then you didn't read very carefully. You will note that I began by saying I'd quote the manual, the scriptures and the prophets and then tell you about my personal prayerful preparation. I think that fits what is suggest in D&C 121 pretty well.
And I never said the hypothetical parent should believe me "because I've been called and sustained", I said I would remind them that they had sustained me in this calling, which had a very different intent. When we sustain people we are covenanting to support and respect them in their calling. I have found that very often in the church people raise their hands saying they will "sustain" people in their callings, but then criticize them and tear them down. I think we need to be reminded that when we raise our hands we are covenanting to support those people as long as they are striving to faithfully serve.
If you sincerely believe that your children's Sunday School teachers "have not a clue in their brains as to what the gospel is about.", then you are dishonest when you raise your hand saying you will sustain them in their calling and really should go and talk with the Bishop about your concerns.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm more in MattP's camp on this one. We do have rules at home, and we do try to teach our kids correct principles at home, but when they're away from home they are going to be exposed to other families' rules and conventions, or to different teaching styles, or to different takes on things, or whatever. I welcome the chance for them to see some variety, actually. It gives them new ideas, it gives me new ideas, and usually it turns into something new and interesting to learn about.
I trust that the majority of the time, what we have taught them ourselves will be the standard they judge other things against, and that they can sort it out for themselves. We are the most careful, I think, about what situations we allow our kids into, and exert our influence there and not as much in the minute-by-minute activities they're involved in once they are there. We allow them to go to places where we know they will be safe, and then we give those in charge a fair amount of trust to not go overboard. If they end up watching Smurfs or playing Mario Party for 3 hours instead of playing with their friends, I will be disappointed but not too worried.
Of course I would be upset if my child were being exposed to things I objected to, especially if they were being told without my knowledge that it was perfectly OK. There is a definite line there. I do not think an episode of SpongeBob is going to undermine our home rules, but there are definitely shows that we don't watch anywhere for any reason, especially our kids. There are teaching and discipline styles we don't care for. And yes, there are people who think they know what's best for our kids to do and think, who don't bother consulting us about it. In those cases I am much more involved, up to removing my child from the situation and not allowing them back, and certainly helping my child sort things out afterwards.
Once again, hopefully my kids would have been taught sufficiently at home that they would be able to see right from wrong in those situations. As they get older they will be making more and more decisions on their own--like where to go for the afternoon, what classes to take at school, what show to watch, etc. I want them to be ready to make the right choices as more responsibility falls on their shoulders.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit Again: this seems to be along the lines of what MattP suggested. I am leaving the rest up.
Why, Rabbit, could you not respond to the kids whose parents taught them incorrectly with "why don't you research a little bit about what your parents say, and interview me a bit about what I say, form your own opinon, and present it to the class?"
This looks to me like an opportunity, rather than a dilemna.
It's definitely what I would have done with my confirmation class.
Edit: To be clear, I think simply trying to substitute one authority figure for another ("they're wrong, I'm right") will only discredit both.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing that's been on my mind: Where do you draw the line between "stupid" (and innappropriate) and "silly" (and fun). I've seen a few episodes of Spongebob and the overwhelming vibe I got from it was "silly and fun", especially for kids. It didn't seem to promote stupidity or rebellious behavior. I bring it up because there's a WHOLE lot of TV out there which is verifiably "stupid" compared to Spongebob. And while I love Discovery/Animal planet, there's a lot to be said for finding something that the kids watch and laugh at.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry Rakeesh, I missed your question before.
quote:Why do you believe your stewardship is served by keeping silent about the thing with the parents teaching incorrect doctrine, Rabbit?
First off, the way I understand the concept of "stewardship" is that it is a way of partitioning responsibilities. A stewardship is necessarily defined by boundaries -- things we are responsible for and things someone else is responsible for. For example, I have stewardship for my own life and my decisions. I am fully and solely responsible and accountable for what I do. My priesthood leaders have a stewardship for me that gives them the responsibility to offer me guidance and counsel, but in the end I must make my own decisions. That is my stewardship, it is not their stewardship.
It wouldn't be accurate to say my stewardship trumps their stewardship, our stewardships are distinct. They have a stewardship to counsel me, I have a stewardship to thoughtful, prayerful make the decision.
Unfortunately, not all the boundaries are exactly clear. Where is the line between a Bishop filling his responsibility to give me guidance and counsel and his trying to force me (unrighteously) to make a certain choices. (See rivka's earlier example with the teacher). I think it causes lots of problems in the world when people over step those bounds of stewardship. In fact I think Scott's intent with this thread could be to rant against those who do not respect the boundaries of stewardship he has as a parent. To that extent, I am in full agreement with Scott.
As a result, I try to be very cautious in not stepping over those bounds. In this particular case, I thought it was outside my stewardship to correct the parents.
Second, In this particular case I was dealing with a discrepancy between how the scriptures and prophets (and lesson manual) said we should behave and how this teenager claimed his parents said he should behave. I addressed it saying that I did not know what reasons the parent might have for giving different advice, recommending that he talk with his parents about it and then reiterating what was said in the scriptures and other gospel sources.
I figured that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the kid was just teacher baiting (a common practice in teenage boys) and really didn't think that telling his parents about it would be productive.
[ March 28, 2008, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't going to comment on the merits of SpongeBob, but since LW has brought it up... We LOVE SpongeBob. SpongeBob and his friend Patrick are the sweetest, most earnest characters and, though they sometimes go up against mean or selfish antagonists, the nice guys always finish first. It's goofy, silly, (did I mention goofy?) fun and I've never seen anything in that show that I've thought to be offensive or inappropriate for children of any age.
There are plenty of shows I don't let my kids watch, including other Nickelodeon cartoons, but Spongebob is as harmless as they come, IMHO.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, Rabbit, could you not respond to the kids whose parents taught them incorrectly with "why don't you research a little bit about what your parents say, and interview me a bit about what I say, form your own opinon, and present it to the class?"
Under a different circumstances, I might have done just that. Without going into the details let me just say it wasn't appropriate in this particular case.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, could you specify the doctrinal point in question, the view held by the parents, and the view that you reinforced? (Since so much discussion has been expended on your handling of the situation I admit I'm very curious.)
I actually dislike Spongebob but it's just not to my taste. Too silly/loud. I don't see how it could be harmful, unless kids somehow got the idea that what they were watching was somehow related to reality. (From what I've seen the show stays distinctly detached from reality.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't watch Spongebob because there is yelling, rudeness to friends and authority figures, and words we don't use around our kids (such as "stupid.") Or, as Ketchup Princess puts it, "Spongebob is mean."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Rabbit, could you specify the doctrinal point in question, the view held by the parents, and the view that you reinforced? (Since so much discussion has been expended on your handling of the situation I admit I'm very curious.)
I'd rather not. The Card's have expressed a desire that this forum not become a site for discussing LDS doctrine. Exactly where the line is drawn isn't clear to me, I may have over stepped the bounds talking about how I understand the LDS concept of stewardship already. I'm happy to e-mail you the details if your interested.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kids really only watch the kids' shows on PBS, mostly because we don't get cable and don't get many more channels than PBS and ABC over the air. But I don't mind. I don't have much love for Nickelodeon or the Disney channel cartoons I've seen lately. They're so cynical, jaded, and devoid of nutritional value. Much like most of what's on TV, really. I don't want my kids wasting their time with too-easy access to that stuff.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
South Park, on the other hand, while it drenches itself in an ocean of puerile potty humor, does teach both tolerance and self reliance. It lampoons stupidity at every turn. If you can look past all the jokes about bodily functions, South Park is definately a show worth watching.
Just.. you know... don't try to eat anything while it's on...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid.
Pshaw! Beavis and Butthead glorified stupid, as do shows like Ed, Edd and Eddy. SpongeBob glorifies earnestness and whimsy. The fact that the characters are *also* stupid is ancillary.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Spongebob is bad. mmmKay.
I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
South Park, on the other hand, while it drenches itself in an ocean of puerile potty humor, does teach both tolerance and self reliance. It lampoons stupidity at every turn. If you can look past all the jokes about bodily functions, South Park is definately a show worth watching.
Just.. you know... don't try to eat anything while it's on...
Yeah, under the disgustingness, South Park is actually very, very intelligent. Especially in the earlier seasons. It's good satire, but it can be icky. Forest Gump wasn't stupid. He was developmentally disabled. There's a difference. But I think Shawshank Redemption should have one over that movie as it was so much better than Forest Gump which was just designed to push emotional buttons.
As for Spongebob, it's really hilarious, especially the part where Spongebob strinks everyone in town and when Spongebob turned into a real sponge. It's about as funny as ABBA videos (I was cracking up over those last night. But, some of the stuff can be a bit... inappropiate.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loathe scatalogical humor. I don't secretly think it's funny - it makes me very uncomfortable.
I love clever and funny, but South Park clever and funny is quite literally wrapped in ****. No thank you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I loathe scatalogical humor. I don't secretly think it's funny - it makes me very uncomfortable.
I wonder how that gets determined. That stuff cracks me up, but totally squigs out my wife. There is definitely a male bias for that kind of humor which is reinforced by other males, but I know that's not the complete answer.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat: Cringe humor is what makes me uncomfortable. The potty humor in South Park leaves me cold.
"Oh yay, another poo joke. Can we get back to the biting social commentary, PLEASE?"
That's why I say one has to look past the potty humor.. Except for teenage boys. I'm sure that's what they watch it for.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like embarassment humour. It makes me ache. Potty humor though, I can take it or leave it. I reckon it depends. Though I do not like Mr. Hanky episodes very much. ew.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes me uncomfortable and I think it's gross. I don't go rooting around in the toilet for drinking water either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I want biting social commentary I just come to Hatrack. I don't need it so bad that I'm willing to sift through South Park's sludge just to get a few nuggets.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I dispise programming that glorifies being stupid. I have the same problem with movies like Forest Gump. (I hate the fact that I enjoy the movie anyway.)
If its any consolation, I don't think Forest Gump glorifies stupidity. It think it tries to redefine stupidity. "Stupid is as stupid does" The show illustrates that many nominally "smart" are in practice a lot stupider than Forest Gump.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I wonder if being more open to input from outside sources might be a good thing even (or especially) for people who are pretty sure they already know better. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
