Letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law

[Guest]

Interesting thread. I can easily get in trouble in here just like I got in trouble in RS last Sunday.

1.) There was a thread a while ago where I posted my confusion on why somebody who eats 100 slices of pizza a day can get a temple recommend while somebody who drinks one ounce of alcohol once a week can't. The reply was that avoiding eating in excess is living the spirit of the law while alcohol avoidance is the letter of the law. I disagreed. Because both are clearly stated in D&C 49.

2.) In RS last Sunday, we were talking about pornography. Somebody stated that everybody should install Keylogger on their teen-ager's computers. I disagreed. For me, putting keylogger on a teen-ager's computer is going to mar your relationship. And, you can't insist on installing Keylogger on their friends' computers, etc. My main point though, is that, if by the time your kids are teen-agers and they still have the desire to view porn and act on it, then the battle is lost. The reason being, they should have learned precept upon precept since they were babies that immodesty is a bad thing so that by the time they are teen-agers and has started to "spread their wings" they can better govern themselves. And if they're doing it to rebel, then there is something wrong with the home which may not have anything to do with the modesty lesson but something else - parents' fighting maybe? This can lead to a stressful environment that a teen-ager rebels against and porn is a way for them to get your attention, etc.

The lessons do not end just because they're self-governing... but installing Keylogger is not a lesson - it's a show of distrust. Maybe it is very naive on my part to think that by the time the kids are teen-agers they should have already gone waaaaay beyond the letter of the law and has grasped the spirit of the law and govern themselves accordingly regardless of what Hannah Montana is wearing. And all the parents need to do is maintain the house rules and continue teaching. The object of the teaching is so that your kids will choose for themselves to close their eyes when a disturbing image is presented on a PG movie, or walk out of the movie on their own.

My friend walked out of the PG-13 movie Hancock. He's my hero. My, then 7 year old, closed his eyes on Star Trek when the big monster in the snow looked like he was going to eat Captain Kirk. He told me after the movie he closed his eyes so he wants to know what happened. So, I gave him praise after praise after praise for closing his eyes (violence is just as bad as sexual content!) then told him it wasn't violent because he didn't eat Captain Kirk, so I rewarded him with another movie ticket so he can watch the whole thing again with his grandpa.

Okay, so I don't have teen-agers yet. My eldest is only 8. So, if anyone of you (Dr T!) can contribute your thoughts to #2, I just might be able to learn a lot more parenting stuff I can apply to my kids. Hopefully, this is not too far from the subject of the thread.

Last note: The bad part of raising kids is that you only have one chance at it. There is no "undo button".

Edited August 27, 2009 by anatess

[Misshalfway]

To address Anatess...

1. I would have disagreed as well. I don't see beer as the letter and donuts as the spirit, nor do I see that that perspective understands the spirit if they feel any obsessive indulgence is part of living the law.

I will say that part of the law is tied into our worthiness and church participation and it appears that the rest is handled privately between God and the individual. I don't see the same consequences being fruitful on this side of things. Anyway... if it did, can you imagine the temple recommend interview? Blah!

2. Installing something like keylogger does not speak to distrusting our kids. It addresses the distrust we have with the internet in general. It speaks to a loving action we parents take to protect our kids.....even from themselves. There are forces out there that will do ANYTHING to ensnare our kids. And I think we as parents have to protect them!! Exposing children to pornographic pictures, acts, conversation, etc, is a form of child abuse. Even if such is used by a parent but left unguarded for a child to find. And then there is the whole issue of internet preditors and being very aware of who are kids are talking to. A parent who says they think everyone should use protective software, imo, is wise. Better to be safe than sorry, in this case, I think is the very best advise. Even the tiniest peek or experiment can be deadly. Not using something like this is akin to leaving our kids to play in a backyard of rattlesnakes and saying.."It's ok, I trust you baby."

I don't see how this subject applies to the thread other than speaking to differences we all might have with regards to how we live the principles of proper parenting. I think there are lots of variances here that meet the demands of morality without infringing on the individuality of preference and circumstance.

The Lord won't command in all things. We do have to think and act on our own as we try to live lives of principle. My rant was focused on these differences as we as humans sometimes don't tolerate these permissable/righteous variances.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Guest]

Misshalfway, I agree with protecting the computer (my husband is a server admin and I'm a programmer) but Keylogger is "after the fact" not before it (it takes pictures of the screen at certain time intervals). So, it is nothing but "spying".

But you're right. This is way off topic besides the thought that we're hoping kids will understand WHY we don't want them doing certain things (like watching R movies, etc.) instead of just avoiding it because the church said so...