quote:Originally posted by Jamio: If my daughter hurts herself, I comfort her if she cries, but I also praise her when she deals with it herself, so she gets just as much attention from me either way. About three times out of four she chooses to get back up without a fuss.
That's what works for me, but I'm from the family bed camp. Not 'cause I think it traumatizes babies to sleep on their own (some people get all militant about that like you might as well drown your kid in the river if you're going to make them sleep in a crib), but because it's so much easier to get back to sleep after nursing if I never have to get up in the first place.
That's not a bad idea. And I don't have a problem with the family bed. Both of my babies started out in bed with me. I tried to put my son in his crib at first but nights were sheer agony until I brought him in bed with me and learned to nurse on my side. I did kick both babies out around 5 months, though, because they learned to crawl and I was worried about them falling out of the bed. Actually, my daughter did fall out of bed once, right before I moved her. It actually worked out great for us because both moved very easily at 5 months.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in Jamio's camp. I think the important thing in dealing with a toddler falling down or otherwise hurting themself is to suspend your reaction until they react. That way you avoid the problem of your reaction causing them to over-react, but can still comfort them if they are actually hurt or scared.
And we leave a stool at the foot of our bed so the 2 1/2 year old can climb in at 3 am without one of us having to sit up and help him.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We find that toddlers make rotten bedmates (the youngest who we haven't bothered to train to sleep alone yet). She turns and kicks in her sleep, and we've had toes put up our noses. No better when she's conscious, she'll try to pry our eyes right open with her sharp little fingernails if we're slow to match her morning cheer.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange how things can be an issue in one family but not in another, or an issue with one child but not with another. The thing I dreaded most was potty training. It seemed to be the one area where none of the "experts" gave clear advice. And I knew quite a few parents with kids three, four, and five wearing diapers.
And then with my oldest, the weirdest thing happened. The night before her second birthday, she took the training potty out of the closet in her room, took off her last diaper ever, sat down and said, "I'm doing this from now on."
And it was done.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Since I know I'm Sasha's mother, and he knows it, and God knows it, it really doesn't matter too much if some other people decide I'm not, does it? But most important of all, I want you to understand that in no conceivable way is it your place to pronounce upon someone else's family relationships. Even someone you barely know. You step far beyond the bounds of your stewardship when you presume to judge things like that. Please think about that. It's simply not your place.
Um,..
If I start calling myself my brother's new mother, I can't just say it's 'not your place' if you point out how that simply just doesn't work the way I desperately want to think it does.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In our defense, scifibum, we did try the "hard nights" strategy with the first one for quite some time. No response whatsoever. She just cried and cried and cried. She may be afflicted with my own terrible lifelong insomnia
In any case, every child is different. I think the younger kid might easily have responded to the "leave 'em in the room" treatment if that hadn't been such a miserable failure with the older kid Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT's my grand-aunt: but the impossibly young and fabulous one (because of a sizeable age gap between siblings up the family tree) who is always off in exotic climes, having marvelous, if slightly eccentric adventures (camel trekking through Kazakhstan with Pierre Trudeau type of thing). Every now and then she comes to family reunions, and they always seem indescribably dull the following years in her absence.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it still upsets me just as much when my youngest falls down and gets hurt. (Although the oldest still holds the record; he tried running on concrete pavement and tripped, put out his hands, and neatly executed what I shall call the flat tire wheelbarrow. He pivoted right over his hands and when his forehead touched pavement it skidded with just about all of his weight on top of it. He still has a faint pink circle there to commemorate his gymnastic skin removal.)
You know, ... this means your kid actually pulled off the legendary midget wrestler face slide.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to point out that none of you know anything like the whole story. I'm not planning on telling it because it's my son's story to tell, not mine. Because of that, and because you for some reason think your stewardship extends to my family, you've made this mistake. It IS your mistake, and not ours. I'll say that again. You are the ones making a mistake here, for the obvious reason that you don't know much about the situation. I'm still trying to fathom why it happened that a group of you think it's your duty to judge in this matter, but that's not important. If you feel like you'd like to maintain an embarrassed silence, or any other sort of silence, every time I mention my son on hatrack, please do so. Thank you.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree we don't know the whole story. But you have chosen to share part of it, and you can't expect us not to make judgments based on what you've chosen to share. You can't have it both ways -- if you're going to talk about Sasha as your son, you're going to have to deal with the fact that many of us find what you have shared deeply troubling. We know we cannot change the situation -- you are both adults, and made your choices. We can, however, express our disapproval, and we have every right to do that. It is part of being a community. Sometimes disapproving is all you can do.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of getting very off topic, I'd like to point out that people seem far more accepting of the claim that Tatiana's labeling herself as a mother is "spitting on the concept of parenthood" than they are of those who claim that gay marriage contradicts the concept of marriage.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that many people disapprove of specific instances of marriage (gay or not) without wishing to make the whole thing illegal.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to point out that many people disapprove of specific instances of marriage (gay or not) without wishing to make the whole thing illegal.
That's certainly true. I'd think it's generally unwise to pass judgement on a specific instance of relationship unless one has a pretty in-depth knowledge of what's going on. People can be rather unique, and so relationships between people can accordingly follow rather unique rules in specific instances. I suspect there's times when making those kind of judgement calls can be helpful, but from what I've seen it more often than not just makes people angry without any real benefit to any party.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised by that. People are the same all over - self-righteous and sure of their own moral rectitude while quick to blast anyone who disagrees with them using the same tactics and the same reasoning they decry in other people.
posted
Xaposert: Depends on the person. People often judge a great number of specific instances of relationships without in-depth knowledge anyways. Trophy wifes, Hollywood marriages with large differences between ages are some common classes.
Additionally, there are large cultural differences in what are suitable personal topics for strangers to comment on.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I agree we don't know the whole story. But you have chosen to share part of it, and you can't expect us not to make judgments based on what you've chosen to share.
Perhaps I shouldn't expect that of everyone, but I ought to be able to expect that of Christians. Jesus taught not to judge each other, certainly then those who claim to follow him ought to avoid making judgements based on what they know is only part of the story.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Wait until the pediatrician tells you that kids can run fevers of 106 or 107.... and you see your kid do it.
I have no kids, but this alarms me. My eight-year-old cousin just got out of the hospital a week or so ago, where he had been for two weeks thanks to Post-Strep Kidney Disease. He had been running a 103-104 temp for five days before the doctor got some test results back, said, "Oh, I'm going to refer you to a kidney specialist," and did nothing else, like start the kid on antibiotics for the strep A he'd picked up from his mom (he'd had flu-like symptoms). When the kidney specialist saw the results, she was so alarmed she called my aunt and uncle and said to take him to the ER right away. He was admitted as fast as you can be and spent most of those two weeks in Pediatric ICU (the most serious of the sections or the intermediate area) with tubes in him to get dialysis once a day.
I also ran a 104 temp when I was eight and ended up in the hospital for four days with the worst case of scarlet fever the hospital had seen in like fifty years. This type of thing might not happen very often, but it would make me wary of a temp degrees lower than 106 or 107 in my own child (or younger cousin, as the case my be).
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, let me clarify. The fact that kids can run fevers higher than adults is not a reason to ignore any fever. And any fever or anything that concerns you is a good reason to call or visit your family doctor or pediatrician.
The point I was trying to make is that before I had kids I had never heard that could happen; I thought any human died at 102 degrees. And then I got the chance to see both my son and daughter go through such high fevers (under medical monitoring).
And to further clarify: when you call or visit your doctor they ask lots of questions designed to uncover possible cause, consequences, etc.
And to even further clarify: don't take anything I say as medical advice. I'm like a tv exercise infomercial in that regard. See a real doctor.
I'd write more but I have to go now: my wife got some rusty metal stuck in her eye and I've got to find some pliers or something to try to get it out....
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily, Rabbit, I have not claimed to follow those teachings anytime recently, so you don't need to have any expectations of me.
As Tom said, Tatiana did a good thing by adopting Sasha and extending her medical insurance over him. I hope that the care she was able to fund helps him overcome his medical problems. I'm sure he feels a deep appreciation for this, and love for her. There is no rest of the story that I can conceive of that would make me agree that that makes her his mother.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jesus taught not to judge each other, certainly then those who claim to follow him ought to avoid making judgements based on what they know is only part of the story.
Actually, Jesus taught us to judge wisely, and to be merciful.
He never said close your eyes; nor did he say, "Leave that mote in your brother's eye."
:shrug:
The 'don't judge' argument is dumb.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eljay, You may not profess to follow Jesus but many of the the people who have posted judgements on Tatiana here do. My post was directed at the
Scott, Since you are LDS, you should read Dallin Oaks talk on righteous judgement. He says, and very wisely so, that the first and foremost criteria for righteous judgment is that we judge only within our stewardship. I don't believe you or anyone here has stewardship for Tatiana and Sasha. If some one who has posted here does have that stewardship, then they are certainly violating that it by posting their judgements publicly on this forum.
And if you are talking about wisdom, I fail to see any wisdom in continuing to beat this dead horse knowing very well that the outcome won't be any different this time than it was any of the previous times its come up.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think my opinion is in line with what Elder Oaks says. It's an intermediate judgment that judges the situation, not the people.
The stewardship question (raised by both you and Tatiana) doesn't really apply. Elder Oaks makes it clear that he's discussing stewardship in terms of Church responsibilities, not community interaction. That's the point of his example.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, let me note that your "first and foremost" rule on stewardship was listed third in Elder Oaks' talk, and was definitely not qualified as being "foremost."
Let me suggest that next time you want to reference a talk from a General Authority, you look it up first. The Church has this nice website and all... shame to let it go to waste...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Elder Oaks is talking specifically about intermediate judgements when he says "Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities."
There is no indication that by stewardship he is referring solely to our stewardships with in the church. In fact, his use of the "personal responsibilities" in the following sentence indicates he intended a much broader interpretation.
He then follows this by saying "Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. " Unless people people are privy to information that was never posted here, I don't think any one of you has adequate knowledge of the facts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the only place you know someone from is their postings on an online forum, you have very very little information about them and their life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Perhaps you can explain to me how your judgement of this situation meets any of the Oaks criteria except that it is an intermediate judgement.
quote:Let me suggest that next time you want to reference a talk from a General Authority, you look it up first. The Church has this nice website and all... shame to let it go to waste...
What qualifies you to judge that I didn't.
He didn't use the words first and foremost, but its pretty clear that this was essential for any judgment to be righteous.
I find it very aggravating when Mormons justify themselves judging others using Oaks words and other church sources. It is really clear that the object of Oaks speech is to severely restrict what can be considered righteous judgement and any honest reading of the talk would lead most people to see that most of the intermediate judgements we make are likely not righteous. Here are some exerts that emphasize this point.
quote:We do not need to judge nearly so much as we think we do. This is the age of snap judgments. … [We need] the courage to say, ‘I don’t know. I am waiting further evidence. I must hear both sides of the question.’ It is this suspended judgment that is the supreme form of charity
quote:The scriptures give a specific caution against judging where we cannot know all the facts.
quote:There is one qualification to this principle that we should not judge people without an adequate knowledge of the facts. Sometimes urgent circumstances require us to make preliminary judgments before we can get all of the facts we desire for our decision making.
No one here has either a complete knowledge of the facts or any urgent circumstance that would require them to pass judgement on this situation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sometimes very little information is enough.
Except apparently when you and your situations are the ones being judged. I am absolutely astounded that you could say this after you have so frequently has posted that people who know you only from the forum know nothing about you.
But perhaps you are right, I think I have more than enough information to judge your posts to be hypocritical.
And now, I'll bow out of this thread.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's hilarious considering you feel free to pass judgment on any and all and get self-righteous about it until it gets turned on a situation that strikes and chord a you don't like it.
Looks like Elder Oaks's advice is the kind you only think applies to other people and not to yourself.
And for the record, if I start claiming grown men are my children and talk about them like they are three years old, feel free to call me on it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no indication that by stewardship he is referring solely to our stewardships with in the church. In fact, his use of the "personal responsibilities" in the following sentence indicates he intended a much broader interpretation.
I disagree with your interpretation. I think the fact that he used an example referencing someone executing their church calling is sufficient evidence he intended both "personal responsibility" and "stewardship" to refer to Church callings.
Let me note, whilst I'm noting stuff, that no one is questioning the emotions Tatiana apparently feels. This discussion isn't a condemnation of their relationship, or her actions, which as far as I know, are exemplary.
It is a discussion about the words she is choosing to describe the relationship-- words which, according to most of the people in this community, don't mean what she intends them to mean. Because those words conjure powerful images and emotions in other people, when they appear to be misused, there is bound to be a reaction.
As happened in the "Mommies with new babies" thread, where Tatiana talked about her 17 year old "child" who was cranky and sick, as if he were a new baby, and she his mother. None of those terms apply to the people in question, according to the definitions generally used by this community.Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it very aggravating when Mormons justify themselves judging others using Oaks words and other church sources.
Consider me an object lesson in long-suffering, then. I'm happy to be a part of the Lord's efforts to improve your life.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I didn't even know it was possible to legally adopt someone over 18.
In some states the cutoff is 19.
Personally, I don't find insurance fraud all that generous. Opening one's home certainly is. But not the insurance fraud.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, IIRC, Tatiana did this on the up-and-up. Sasha was 17 (I think) when she adopted him, and apparently, his parents were all right with the arrangement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was 18, almost 19, and at least one parent objected strongly. Even if both had agreed, how is it not defrauding the insurance company?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
