Kelly that is awesome and beautiful. Congrats again.
I think we are going to do NFP. The reason I was on the mini pill after Oskar is because I don't have periods while I nurse. As far as I'm aware it is hard to track your cycle without that key reference point. There are free NFP classes at the local hospital. Should Timothy and I attend one or can you figure everything out just as well from the internet? Do you have any experience with the computers designed to track your cycle?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Andrea
If I could do the NFP thing I totally would. I might still be desperate enough to risk it.
Yes - it is baby number 6...a little surprise souvenir we brought back from Mexico this winter. ;-) But we are super excited. After we told the kids, both of our older daughters said that they'd been feeling lately like they were missing a sibling. Josh and I had similar feelings in the year or so leading up to this event, so it was special to think that we were all getting prepared for this addition!
Yes - it is baby number 6...a little surprise souvenir we brought back from Mexico this winter. ;-) But we are super excited. After we told the kids, both of our older daughters said that they'd been feeling lately like they were missing a sibling. Josh and I had similar feelings in the year or so leading up to this event, so it was special to think that we were all getting prepared for this addition!
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Response to Kelly
Birth control: I am scared of IUDs. First because they stay inside you which is weird (I also don't wear tampons so I am fully cognizant that I am the weird one). Second, I don't want a hormonal one because I know I don't respond well to hormones. I don't want a non-hormonal one because nobody is exactly sure how they prevent pregnancy and I am uncomfortable with that.
The pill creates unpleasant hormonal problems for me.
Abstinence is not an option and neither is only condoms--I hate condoms and with both abstinence and condoms my marriage is likely to suffer.
So . . . we're thinking of buying the little computer thing that records your temp every day and gives you a red light when you're fertile and a green light when you're not. That way we are doing NFP but without my having to record it all myself. Plus, we only have to use condoms on red days which is a easier for me to wrap my head around for the long term. Fortunately, I am extremely regular.
I also think that the open womb/closed womb idea is wonderful. I don't have the faith to trust it. I am much more inclined to think that Heavenly Father wants us to seek his counsel and then do our part.
I'm glad you posted about your mom--see, other people have heard this counsel. That was something my family members have said; it can't be that important if we haven't heard about it before.
I'll read the depression one when I have a little more time.
PS Is this your 6th? Congrats on the pregnancy--that is wonderful!
The pill creates unpleasant hormonal problems for me.
Abstinence is not an option and neither is only condoms--I hate condoms and with both abstinence and condoms my marriage is likely to suffer.
So . . . we're thinking of buying the little computer thing that records your temp every day and gives you a red light when you're fertile and a green light when you're not. That way we are doing NFP but without my having to record it all myself. Plus, we only have to use condoms on red days which is a easier for me to wrap my head around for the long term. Fortunately, I am extremely regular.
I also think that the open womb/closed womb idea is wonderful. I don't have the faith to trust it. I am much more inclined to think that Heavenly Father wants us to seek his counsel and then do our part.
I'm glad you posted about your mom--see, other people have heard this counsel. That was something my family members have said; it can't be that important if we haven't heard about it before.
I'll read the depression one when I have a little more time.
PS Is this your 6th? Congrats on the pregnancy--that is wonderful!
surgical sterilization
I'm not sure what the old handbook said, but I have a vivid memory of learning this lesson when I was a teenager. My YW leader had told us a story about how she or her husband had gotten sterilized, and then after a bit they ended up pregnant, and she felt like this baby was a special blessing that was meant to come to her family. My mom jumped on that and pointed out to me that the prophets had counseled against those sorts of procedures. I'm sure she didn't want me to get the impression that we can do whatever we want with our bodies and Heavenly Father's plan will come to pass no matter what.
That story, and your SIL's experience with her stake president, reminded me of Elder Holland's recent conference talk where he said God has imperfect mortals to work with and how frustrating it could be to Him. We don't always get the messages we should be getting from our church leaders because they are no more perfect than we are. I think if someone counsels against what is in the handbook, I would disregard that (since the handbook is technically coming from a higher source).
Anyway, timely topic for me, as I was studying on it last week. I'm 6.5 months pregnant and pretty sure this is the final baby. I don't think Heavenly Father has any more planned for us (at least it would be QUITE a while down the road, and then probably not through my own pregnancy), so I feel good about that situation. I'm just trying to decide what to do about it. I have mixed feelings.
On one hand is the open womb/closed womb idea, which I think takes a lot of faith and can be right for some people.
On the other hand is the idea of making a prayerful decision and then YOU and spouse exercise responsibility and take care of your birth control needs - which involves using the mortal agency that God has given us.
I think I lean towards the second philosophy, but I just really want to be sure that I'm doing the RIGHT thing, you know?
Anyway, Andrea, if birth control pills are not for you, have you decided on alternatives (if that's not too personal)? I have tried the pill which worked fairly well for me, I just have an environmental/health issue with them. I've also tried an IUD (non-hormone) which was only moderately successful as I had some side effects that I'd rather not deal with - but in terms of simplicity it was fabulous. AND I tried NFP which I think is totally ideal except that my silly body isn't regular so it's really hard to do (so for me, using this method involves a lot of faith in the open/closed womb idea). I've also had long periods of infertility (thus the reason I have some huge gaps between my children). That has been the most effective. ;-)
On another topic, a friend of mine shared an article about postpartum depression that I found pretty interesting.
http://www.kindredcommunity.com/2011/10/how-other-cultures-prevent-postpartum-depression/
That story, and your SIL's experience with her stake president, reminded me of Elder Holland's recent conference talk where he said God has imperfect mortals to work with and how frustrating it could be to Him. We don't always get the messages we should be getting from our church leaders because they are no more perfect than we are. I think if someone counsels against what is in the handbook, I would disregard that (since the handbook is technically coming from a higher source).
Anyway, timely topic for me, as I was studying on it last week. I'm 6.5 months pregnant and pretty sure this is the final baby. I don't think Heavenly Father has any more planned for us (at least it would be QUITE a while down the road, and then probably not through my own pregnancy), so I feel good about that situation. I'm just trying to decide what to do about it. I have mixed feelings.
On one hand is the open womb/closed womb idea, which I think takes a lot of faith and can be right for some people.
On the other hand is the idea of making a prayerful decision and then YOU and spouse exercise responsibility and take care of your birth control needs - which involves using the mortal agency that God has given us.
I think I lean towards the second philosophy, but I just really want to be sure that I'm doing the RIGHT thing, you know?
Anyway, Andrea, if birth control pills are not for you, have you decided on alternatives (if that's not too personal)? I have tried the pill which worked fairly well for me, I just have an environmental/health issue with them. I've also tried an IUD (non-hormone) which was only moderately successful as I had some side effects that I'd rather not deal with - but in terms of simplicity it was fabulous. AND I tried NFP which I think is totally ideal except that my silly body isn't regular so it's really hard to do (so for me, using this method involves a lot of faith in the open/closed womb idea). I've also had long periods of infertility (thus the reason I have some huge gaps between my children). That has been the most effective. ;-)
On another topic, a friend of mine shared an article about postpartum depression that I found pretty interesting.
http://www.kindredcommunity.com/2011/10/how-other-cultures-prevent-postpartum-depression/
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Why No Vasectomies
Some of you are aware that in the most recent handbook there was information about vasectomies and tubals. Here's the quote:
21.4.15 Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)
The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.
Since the discovery of this little snippet of information, my family has been discussing it extensively. Some members of the family still feel like it is okay to get a vasectomy if they are absolutely sure they are done having kids, and others (myself included) feel that this is a black/white issue now and will forgo surgical sterilization in the future. My SIL asked her stake president about it and he said he felt like vasectomies are fine regardless of the handbook instruction. So . . . what I'm about to say is doctrine according to me.
I've been thinking and thinking about the why behind no surgical sterilization. Since birth control is fine, why not permanent birth control? I think I found an answer that satisfies me in, no surprise, a Bednar talk. His talk on chastity, to be more specific.
The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.
Since the discovery of this little snippet of information, my family has been discussing it extensively. Some members of the family still feel like it is okay to get a vasectomy if they are absolutely sure they are done having kids, and others (myself included) feel that this is a black/white issue now and will forgo surgical sterilization in the future. My SIL asked her stake president about it and he said he felt like vasectomies are fine regardless of the handbook instruction. So . . . what I'm about to say is doctrine according to me.
I've been thinking and thinking about the why behind no surgical sterilization. Since birth control is fine, why not permanent birth control? I think I found an answer that satisfies me in, no surprise, a Bednar talk. His talk on chastity, to be more specific.
"The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. Specific guidelines for the proper use of the ability to create life are vital elements in the Father’s plan. How we feel about and use that supernal power will determine in large measure our happiness in mortality and our destiny in eternity.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained:
“The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children."
Getting surgically sterilized appears ungrateful in light of Elder Oaks comment. Even if we aren't using the exalted power of procreation, we should be respecting the power given to us. We wanted to have Timothy get a vasectomy for convenience sake, to make our lives easier. It is essentially a selfish reason that doesn't take into consideration the magnitude of the gift given to us to be co-creators with God.
Also, for all of our marriage I have been in charge of preventing pregnancy. Since the pill does crazy stuff to my hormonal balance I have long resented Timothy for how little he had to worry about it. I've come to believe that the pill isn't as easy of a solution as it first seems. Not that I think you shouldn't use it--there isn't any inherent difference in the non-permanent forms of birth control, but for me, personally, I think it hasn't been very good for our marriage. Since I refused to be on any form of the pill ever again, my resentment has gone. We are working together and both of us have to deal with the effects of pregnancy prevention--not just me. (As a side note--Timothy would have been willing to do this earlier, I tend to have a martyr complex at times and fail to address issues with my husband so absolutely no blame on him for my feelings.) Maybe part of learning to bridle all our passions is learning to work together with gratitude on this issue rather than looking for an easy out?
And maybe, like my sister Kayli has mentioned, we just don't understand or fully appreciate our mortal bodies in general. Elder Bednar talks about that in his chastity talk as well.
"Satan relentlessly works to distort the most important elements of the Father’s plan. He does not have a body, and his eternal progress has been halted. Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body. Because of his rebellion, Lucifer has denied himself all of the mortal blessings and experiences made possible through a body of flesh and bones. He cannot learn the lessons that only an embodied spirit can learn. He resents the reality of a literal and universal resurrection of all mankind. One of the potent scriptural meanings of the word damned is illustrated in his inability to continue developing and becoming like our Heavenly Father.
Because a physical body is so central to the Father’s plan of happiness and our spiritual development, Lucifer seeks to frustrate our progression by tempting us to use our bodies improperly. One of the ultimate ironies of eternity is that the adversary, who is miserable precisely because he has no physical body, entices us to share in his misery through the improper use of our bodies. The very tool he does not have is thus the primary target of his attempts to lure us to spiritual destruction."
Maybe you think I'm a loon and should just go with my SIL's stake president's view of the matter, but I'm pretty satisfied in my own mind that there is a reason for the counsel.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Child-directed learning
Amen to everything you said Marilyn. I am much more of a fan of child-directed learning now than I was before I started to homeschool. My children are curious about everything and I can see how learning one thing would lead them to be curious about something else and from that to something else and on and on. Finding subjects to study wouldn't be a problem.
I also think the school the guest kept talking about sounded awesome. I am completely convinced that if a person is motivated he learns faster and more effectively than if he is forced. I can totally believe that someone could avoid learning any math for years and then learn everything necessary to score well on the ACT in a few months (with a good mentor). Plus, you'd get a better score because the information was fresh. The longer I stay out of the traditional model of education the less I like it. Not to say that it doesn't do an adequate job of educating or that teachers aren't awesome.
As for my loosening up and approaching my children's education in a more flexible way: I have such a hard time with any lack of structure. I have finally managed to let go of "we have to learn" and have embraced "we'll get around to learning everything important eventually." I can't, however, let go of the "you have a talent in this area so you must work on it" and "you will be useful in the Kingdom so you will learn this."
Maybe someone with my personality just plain can't unschool? I can, however, take back every uneducated thing I ever said about unschooling. I really believe it could work and children could thrive with parents that use that approach.
I also think the school the guest kept talking about sounded awesome. I am completely convinced that if a person is motivated he learns faster and more effectively than if he is forced. I can totally believe that someone could avoid learning any math for years and then learn everything necessary to score well on the ACT in a few months (with a good mentor). Plus, you'd get a better score because the information was fresh. The longer I stay out of the traditional model of education the less I like it. Not to say that it doesn't do an adequate job of educating or that teachers aren't awesome.
As for my loosening up and approaching my children's education in a more flexible way: I have such a hard time with any lack of structure. I have finally managed to let go of "we have to learn" and have embraced "we'll get around to learning everything important eventually." I can't, however, let go of the "you have a talent in this area so you must work on it" and "you will be useful in the Kingdom so you will learn this."
Maybe someone with my personality just plain can't unschool? I can, however, take back every uneducated thing I ever said about unschooling. I really believe it could work and children could thrive with parents that use that approach.
Free to Learn
Andrea, I listened to that program. I thought it was really interesting. I went to the guy's website too and he has some interesting ideas on there. I guess it's hard for me to let go of the "curriculum" idea completely (hence, I am a homeschooler not an unschooler) but I see a lot of value in the child-directed learning model. I guess I try to do that to some extent, by focusing more on what the kids seem intrigued by as we go along. But I also think that the kids might not KNOW what they like until I introduce it to them.
It reminded me of the "non-compulsory education" bill someone is trying to pass. It will never get passed, of course---the education system is too engrained in all of us, and we can all imagine the horror stories of neglectful parents etc---but I think it's kind of logical, actually, that without the full weight of The State behind our current education model, more people would be brave enough to explore other options.
It reminded me of the "non-compulsory education" bill someone is trying to pass. It will never get passed, of course---the education system is too engrained in all of us, and we can all imagine the horror stories of neglectful parents etc---but I think it's kind of logical, actually, that without the full weight of The State behind our current education model, more people would be brave enough to explore other options.
Monday, June 24, 2013
What do you think?
I listened to this episode of Radio West and thought it was really interesting. Would love to hear what people think about it before I add my two cents.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/free-learn
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/free-learn
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
More on modesty.
This article kind of reiterates what we've been saying. I thought it was good.
http://realintent.org/in-defense-of-the-orange-shirt/
http://realintent.org/in-defense-of-the-orange-shirt/
Friday, May 24, 2013
Lots of time on my hands....
So for anyone not aware, I've been at home drugged up after a tonsillectomy this week (and a lap chole two weeks ago), friends have been watching my kids, and I've slept all day most days this week. In my spare time, I've been sparring online.
My question to you all, is do you think I've been rude? I really have been trying not to be. And have I made sense? I feel pretty loopy so, it's questionable.
ME (after Carrie's last reply)
So if we rationalize that we’re obeying the spirit of the law, we can do whatever we want?
Reply (someone other than Carrie)
Kami – the point is we should never “just obey”. This means we are turning off our brains and not think about anything. Are you suggesting blind obedience?
ME
Adam offered sacrifices without understanding why. Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac without understanding why. Given those examples, yes, I think sometimes you have to trust the faith you do have in the gospel, and trust that the Lord knows more than you, and yes, just obey. I have had specific instances where a principal or practice has been confirmed to me that it is truth, such as with tithing and visiting teaching. However, there are many times that I do things in the church simply because I know the Book of Mormon is true and that we are led by prophets, not because I have unshakeable faith in that one small doctrine (like modesty). I also believe that until you obey a law through faith, you won’t have a witness of validity. My testimony of the truth of tithing and visiting teaching came after I was already doing those things, like in this scripture.
Ether 12:6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
Reply
So if you were asked to do something by our leaders that you knew as morally wrong, like Abraham having to kill his son you would have no issues with that? Can our leaders do no wrong ever?
ME
Or like practicing polygamy (á la Nauvoo)? This would be a better example for your question, I think, since Abraham wasn’t following a leader, he was asked by God, two very different things. And he alone in all the scriptures was ever put to such a test. So if I was asked by the prophet to say… start practicing polygamy again, I think I would have to do what other saints have done before me and pray and fast to receive a spiritual confirmation that the counsel was correct. And if I received an affirmative answer, then I would hope I have the spiritual fortitude to follow that counsel. Polygamy is not the *best* example I realize, because it is part of our doctrine already, but back when it was first introduced it is exactly what you describe of being “asked to do something by our leaders that you knew as morally wrong.”
As for your question, “Can our leaders do no wrong ever?” I think it’s pretty clear from church history and people I’ve known, that everyone has their agency, regardless of their position in the church. General conference addresses from apostles are edited occasionally. And all people are a product of their time. However I don’t believe the Lord would allow the prophet to do anything that would separate us from the Lord or hinder our exaltation. Because basically it boils down to either there is a prophet guided by revelation or there isn’t. This is the one and only true church or it isn’t. Without latter-day prophets our church can’t be possibly be true.
Other Reply
If you have received a confirmation of the principles of tithing and visiting teaching, then you are no longer “just obeying”. If a mother tries teaching her children modesty as the church has outlined it, and she notices a deterioration in her child’s confidence and/or attitude towards others… that would be the opposite of what Moroni was talking about, right? So, it would make no sense under those circumstances to keep “just obeying”.
For the record, I don’t think anyone her is arguing against the principle of modesty. Just the way it is approached and taught to children. When so many people who have tried living the hard lines drawn in For the Strength of the Youth have come away with less than ideal results, at what point is it okay to question it? “Just obeying” until you get the confirmation of the Spirit only works if there is eventually a confirmation of the Spirit…
ME
I actually disagree with your statement that you don’t think anyone here is arguing against the principle of modesty. As I see it, Carrie is taking a straight forward principle and rationalizing it away, so that she feels comfortable dressing her children in whatever she wants. And I know I just sounded really mean and judgmental, when in honest truth, I don’t care if little girls come in sundresses to church without sleeves etc. I know a lot of people think that little kids don’t need the same standard. As I said in my first comment, I teach my kids young because I think it’s good for them to learn to obey young. Plus, what would then be the cut off for them to start obeying? When they’re 12? That seems so arbitrary to me. And what really bothers me the most about Carrie’s article is not that she’s suggesting a different standard for young kids, but that’s she’s suggesting it’s wrong for anyone to teach immodesty/modesty to kids, because of possible peer judging. I know kids can be hurtful and cruel to their peers, but if your child’s confidence is based on wearing sleeveless vs. sleeved dresses, I think there might be other issues besides modesty involved, such as a huge bullying problem or body image issues.
I honestly fail to see how “people who have tried living the hard lines drawn in For the Strength of the Youth have come away with less than ideal results.” What do you mean, less than ideal results? I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t understand. What results are people expecting? To me, it’s just the way you dress, and it sometimes makes it harder to find clothes you like when shopping. End of story. I don’t expect any other results. So what do you mean?
Other Other Reply
Kami,
Carrie is not arguing against the principle of dressing modestly. She is presenting an argument about the pedagogy and the etymology of modesty.
In your argument of obedience, as you have presented, you have committed the classic logical fallacy of presenting a red-herring argument.
ME
Michael,
Carrie’s main points as I understood were A:
“As we teach our children to focus on their clothing choices, we are also teaching them to focus on the clothing choices of their peers.”
B:
“When we think of modesty in it’s true manner- that it is a way to dress to prevent sexual attraction of others, then it seems absurd that we are teaching our children that other children dressed in a tank top are immodest and thus, dressing in a way to encourage sexual attraction of others.
And C:
“We need to take a step back and examine what we are really meaning to teach our children, which is probably that it’s important to keep our bodies covered…..I think that the use of modest/immodest terms while our children are young need to go. At the very least, let’s get rid of immodest. We need to stop drawing a line in the sand because what is immodest in one family, is not immodest in another.”
I think I addressed all these points in my first comment. A. I don’t think kids are overly critical from teaching about modesty, simply being in a peer group makes kids aware of clothing.
B. I don’t think modesty is about anything sexual.
C. I think we should follow the prophet and live the standards outlined in FTSOY–as opposed to what Carrie says of living whatever standard your family sets.
Red herring or not, my point was that I disagree with Carrie’s arguments in their entirety and I outlined why.
Kami – the point is we should never “just obey”. This means we are turning off our brains and not think about anything. Are you suggesting blind obedience?
ME
Adam offered sacrifices without understanding why. Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac without understanding why. Given those examples, yes, I think sometimes you have to trust the faith you do have in the gospel, and trust that the Lord knows more than you, and yes, just obey. I have had specific instances where a principal or practice has been confirmed to me that it is truth, such as with tithing and visiting teaching. However, there are many times that I do things in the church simply because I know the Book of Mormon is true and that we are led by prophets, not because I have unshakeable faith in that one small doctrine (like modesty). I also believe that until you obey a law through faith, you won’t have a witness of validity. My testimony of the truth of tithing and visiting teaching came after I was already doing those things, like in this scripture.
Ether 12:6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
Reply
So if you were asked to do something by our leaders that you knew as morally wrong, like Abraham having to kill his son you would have no issues with that? Can our leaders do no wrong ever?
ME
Or like practicing polygamy (á la Nauvoo)? This would be a better example for your question, I think, since Abraham wasn’t following a leader, he was asked by God, two very different things. And he alone in all the scriptures was ever put to such a test. So if I was asked by the prophet to say… start practicing polygamy again, I think I would have to do what other saints have done before me and pray and fast to receive a spiritual confirmation that the counsel was correct. And if I received an affirmative answer, then I would hope I have the spiritual fortitude to follow that counsel. Polygamy is not the *best* example I realize, because it is part of our doctrine already, but back when it was first introduced it is exactly what you describe of being “asked to do something by our leaders that you knew as morally wrong.”
As for your question, “Can our leaders do no wrong ever?” I think it’s pretty clear from church history and people I’ve known, that everyone has their agency, regardless of their position in the church. General conference addresses from apostles are edited occasionally. And all people are a product of their time. However I don’t believe the Lord would allow the prophet to do anything that would separate us from the Lord or hinder our exaltation. Because basically it boils down to either there is a prophet guided by revelation or there isn’t. This is the one and only true church or it isn’t. Without latter-day prophets our church can’t be possibly be true.
Other Reply
If you have received a confirmation of the principles of tithing and visiting teaching, then you are no longer “just obeying”. If a mother tries teaching her children modesty as the church has outlined it, and she notices a deterioration in her child’s confidence and/or attitude towards others… that would be the opposite of what Moroni was talking about, right? So, it would make no sense under those circumstances to keep “just obeying”.
For the record, I don’t think anyone her is arguing against the principle of modesty. Just the way it is approached and taught to children. When so many people who have tried living the hard lines drawn in For the Strength of the Youth have come away with less than ideal results, at what point is it okay to question it? “Just obeying” until you get the confirmation of the Spirit only works if there is eventually a confirmation of the Spirit…
ME
I actually disagree with your statement that you don’t think anyone here is arguing against the principle of modesty. As I see it, Carrie is taking a straight forward principle and rationalizing it away, so that she feels comfortable dressing her children in whatever she wants. And I know I just sounded really mean and judgmental, when in honest truth, I don’t care if little girls come in sundresses to church without sleeves etc. I know a lot of people think that little kids don’t need the same standard. As I said in my first comment, I teach my kids young because I think it’s good for them to learn to obey young. Plus, what would then be the cut off for them to start obeying? When they’re 12? That seems so arbitrary to me. And what really bothers me the most about Carrie’s article is not that she’s suggesting a different standard for young kids, but that’s she’s suggesting it’s wrong for anyone to teach immodesty/modesty to kids, because of possible peer judging. I know kids can be hurtful and cruel to their peers, but if your child’s confidence is based on wearing sleeveless vs. sleeved dresses, I think there might be other issues besides modesty involved, such as a huge bullying problem or body image issues.
I honestly fail to see how “people who have tried living the hard lines drawn in For the Strength of the Youth have come away with less than ideal results.” What do you mean, less than ideal results? I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t understand. What results are people expecting? To me, it’s just the way you dress, and it sometimes makes it harder to find clothes you like when shopping. End of story. I don’t expect any other results. So what do you mean?
Other Other Reply
Kami,
Carrie is not arguing against the principle of dressing modestly. She is presenting an argument about the pedagogy and the etymology of modesty.
In your argument of obedience, as you have presented, you have committed the classic logical fallacy of presenting a red-herring argument.
ME
Michael,
Carrie’s main points as I understood were A:
“As we teach our children to focus on their clothing choices, we are also teaching them to focus on the clothing choices of their peers.”
B:
“When we think of modesty in it’s true manner- that it is a way to dress to prevent sexual attraction of others, then it seems absurd that we are teaching our children that other children dressed in a tank top are immodest and thus, dressing in a way to encourage sexual attraction of others.
And C:
“We need to take a step back and examine what we are really meaning to teach our children, which is probably that it’s important to keep our bodies covered…..I think that the use of modest/immodest terms while our children are young need to go. At the very least, let’s get rid of immodest. We need to stop drawing a line in the sand because what is immodest in one family, is not immodest in another.”
I think I addressed all these points in my first comment. A. I don’t think kids are overly critical from teaching about modesty, simply being in a peer group makes kids aware of clothing.
B. I don’t think modesty is about anything sexual.
C. I think we should follow the prophet and live the standards outlined in FTSOY–as opposed to what Carrie says of living whatever standard your family sets.
Red herring or not, my point was that I disagree with Carrie’s arguments in their entirety and I outlined why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
