R rated films lead kids to smoking/alcohol/violence

[Guest]

And yet, that is exactly what we are supposed to do: Insulate our children from the wickedness surrounding them and provide a safe haven from the world.

Insulate them by providing a safe environment while they're learning - yes. Making it so they don't see it at all inside a controlled environment. No. When you're in a movie, you're not drinking. You're just watching other people drinking. I don't see the harm in that when we're talking about movies like... How To Train Your Dragon. You don't want it to be that their first experience of having heard someone swear is when you're not there to guide them how to react to it.

I grew up where any reference to anything sexual is so taboo that you can't even call it Chicken Breast. You call it Chicken Chest. My husband can attest to the difficulties we had regarding the effects of that teaching method.

I think this is probably untrue. I suspect there might even be studies or statistics that might be applicable here. But in any case, if what you say is true, then those of us bringing up our children in the Church and doing our best to shield them from the uglier parts of society are in fact doing them a disservice. We would do much better to get them baptized and then start drinking, drugging, and fornicating.

anatess, you have any stats to back up your claim that kids growing up in the church have a weaker testimony?

Note the choice in wording.. higher chance. Trial by fire and all that. I don't have stats. It's purely opinion. I have me as case in point. My siblings will never learn anything but Catholic teachings because they refuse to look outside of it. It's been indoctrinated in their heads that looking at non-Catholic stuff - even reading a non-Catholic scripture verse (King James is non-Catholic) is going to cause them to go to hell and they point to me as an example of it.

And another case in point. My husband who was born LDS never gained a strong testimony of it until he left the church at age 16, attended every single Church in town including the jewish and muslim churches, returned to Church and married a Catholic at age 21. He attended both LDS and Catholic Churches (out of respect for me) for 3 years and one day, I asked him - are you ready to get baptized Catholic? And he looked at me with strength and conviction of pure testimony when he said, No. I asked his brother, who toed the line all his life, the same thing and he answers me - of course not! - in the same manner that my Catholic brother answers me when I ask him if he would take a lesson from the missionaries... an answer brought on by fear of stepping outside the boundaries instead of a strong conviction that this side of the line is where the truth lies. My husband's parents chose to shelter their kids in the same manner that my parents sheltered us. We're choosing a different method for my kids - we'll find out in 10 years or so if it works better. If you're still here, I'll make a report.

Edited May 16, 2012 by anatess

[beefche]

If it's your opinion, don't state it as fact. You said:

A child who grew up in the Church and knows nothing else has a higher chance of having a weaker testimony than a child who grew up outside of the Church, builds a testimony of the Church and chooses to be baptized and follow the covenants even when his entire family does all these non-covenant things around him.

And I highly recommend raising kids in the faith.

[Soulsearcher]

I think in reference to anatess's comments, it's not so much raising them in the faith as raising them sheltered only in the faith. i've met a lot of LDS kids that can't watch the news because it might bring the wrong spirit in to the home and so have no freaking clue as to what's really going on in the real world. when 9/11 happened a few of them were with me that week and asked "how could god let that happen in canada?" I had to ask if they knew NY was in the states and they had no clue. You can educate children about the world with out dumping them into it, and i have actually seen it make them much stronger because they have a deeper understanding and can toughen them up a bit. The family i worked for kept their kids in such a glass bubble that when they hit public school their entire world was rocked and as they hit their teens they were completely lost. I had to start dealing with things their parents should have dealt with a long time before and if their parents hadn't kept them so isolated a lot of harm the kids went through might have been avoided. Of the 5 kids i worked with the 3 oldest all had their testimony shaken, the oldest is very anti church now, the second is on his mission but he committed to it for the sake of a girl he broke up with and his mother so i'm not sure to his motives right now and the third was the only one who's testimony grew, but with great difficulty and denial about a lot of things that happened to her.

[Guest]

If it's your opinion, don't state it as fact. You said:

And I highly recommend raising kids in the faith.

Why do you think that's a statement of fact?

Not every single sentence you put out there start with "This is just my opinion" yet nobody questions whether you're stating fact or opinion.

[Dravin]

Why do you think that's a statement of fact?

Because you didn't qualify it or soften it as your perception/opinion. If I said:

"Anatess kicks puppies and enjoys the misery of innocents."

Chances are it's going to be rendered as a statement of fact rather than having "In my opinion" mentally appended by the reader. Something as simple as putting in an, "I think" softens it up. Makes it a statement of perception instead of a statement of actuality. Nor is the context, for example, "Avengers is the best movie ever!!!!11!", such that people are going to assume opinion unless otherwise stated.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Dravin

[pam]

Why do you think that's a statement of fact?

Not every single sentence you put out there start with "This is just my opinion" yet nobody questions whether you're stating fact or opinion.

I question statements made as fact all the time. Just not always publically.

[Bini]

Just a thought. If one makes a comment without disclaiming "This is my opinion", one shouldn't be surprised if others challenge that comment.

[Windseeker]

I definately think you can overshelter kids. As parents we are to prepare them to live in the world.

While raising my 4 kids, there are many times I observe them condemning people outside the church as "bad" who drink coffee or break other commandemnts or are just different etc.

I've always corrected my children during these times so they understand that drinking coffee does not make a person a "bad" person. I suspect there are those LDS parents who don't correct their children and therefore I think they do a diservice to their kids.

I think it's possible to raise kids that will have more influence on the world then being influenced by the world.

..another thought..

Some of my cousins were not allowed to watch TV while growing up. They used to come visit and we used to try to get them to go out and play..they just wanted to sit and watch our TV the whole time. It was annoying.

[Windseeker]

One more thought on this,

I think it’s better to err in being overprotective then under protective. Looking at the older couples in the Ward who lament the fact their children are not active in the church. Most of them were more under protective and perhaps even partly inactive at times while raising their kids.

[Soulsearcher]

One more thought on this,

I think it’s better to err in being overprotective then under protective. Looking at the older couples in the Ward who lament the fact their children are not active in the church. Most of them were more under protective and perhaps even partly inactive at times while raising their kids.

see and in my personal experience it was the families that were very over protective and sheltering that have had their kids fall away.

[Windseeker]

see and in my personal experience it was the families that were very over protective and sheltering that have had their kids fall away.

I see where you are coming from. I still think for average normal non-insane LDS parents its better to err on the side of safety.

Protecting our home from evil influences is one thing and can be interpreted differently. The key is Love, Patience and Long-suffering, and then after that it's example, and then it's family prayer, FHE, family scripture reading.

I'm far form perfect, We watch lots of movies and I even allow some R movies depending on the content. We don't let our kids watch MTV's Teen Mom, or anything MTV for that matter. We would't allow anything like Jersey Shore or that garbage. The kids enjoy the Office, Disney Channel shows and really that's about it.

[pam]

Kids are exposed to enough in the outside world. They hear it all at school and other places.

Our homes are where they need the shelter from the outside world.

[Soulsearcher]

Kids are exposed to enough in the outside world. They hear it all at school and other places.

Our homes are where they need the shelter from the outside world.

I agree, but there's a difference between shelter and breeding ignorance. If it's not taboo and off limits they are more likely to discuss it with parents, and parent can discuss it as it comes up while watching a movie as an example. a full black out in the home can lead to important topics being missed. Not always but some parents don't take the initiative to cover topics and kids in a sheltered home might not feel comfortable approaching the topics at home and might find other avenues to get answers.

[Guest]

Because you didn't qualify it or soften it as your perception/opinion. If I said:

"Anatess kicks puppies and enjoys the misery of innocents."

Chances are it's going to be rendered as a statement of fact rather than having "In my opinion" mentally appended by the reader. Something as simple as putting in an, "I think" softens it up. Makes it a statement of perception instead of a statement of actuality. Nor is the context, for example, "Avengers is the best movie ever!!!!11!", such that people are going to assume opinion unless otherwise stated.

Just a thought. If one makes a comment without disclaiming "This is my opinion", one shouldn't be surprised if others challenge that comment.

It's one thing if you take my comment as fact, I say, it's not intended as fact, and you say, okay, I misunderstood.

It's another thing to have to be careful about "softening" everything just so you won't take it as fact. It can get really cumbersome.

For example:

Kids are exposed to enough in the outside world. They hear it all at school and other places.

Please give me a link to some statistics to prove that statement of fact.

I can go on and on with that one. And yes, I realize English is just my 3rd language and I may be missing some nuance. But, I don't think I'm far off-base on this one.

[Dravin]

It's one thing if you take my comment as fact, I say, it's not intended as fact, and you say, okay, I misunderstood.

It's another thing to have to be careful about "softening" everything just so you won't take it as fact. It can get really cumbersome.

Who said you had to soften everything? You get to take your pick, either have things occasionally be mistaken for a statement of fact or make the effort to qualify. You asked how it was taken as a statement of fact, I answered that question.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

I see where you are coming from. I still think for average normal non-insane LDS parents its better to err on the side of safety.

Protecting our home from evil influences is one thing and can be interpreted differently. The key is Love, Patience and Long-suffering, and then after that it's example, and then it's family prayer, FHE, family scripture reading.

I'm far form perfect, We watch lots of movies and I even allow some R movies depending on the content. We don't let our kids watch MTV's Teen Mom, or anything MTV for that matter. We would't allow anything like Jersey Shore or that garbage. The kids enjoy the Office, Disney Channel shows and really that's about it.

I try to not say "I don't allow you to..." or "I don't let..." with my kids. Instead, we tell them characteristics of shows that are not worth watching, give them examples of what to avoid, and then sit back and let them choose for themselves, and correct when necessary. We figured I only have influence over what they watch when they're in my house... when they go to their friends' house, they'll need to be able to decide for themselves if the show their friends are watching is something they should stay away from.

MTV is generally crap shows. But even Animal Planet is full of crap shows now. The kids quit watching Legend of Korra. They think it's too "adult" for them now. The Avatar is a late teen-ager, so she's delving into late teen problems that my kids don't care for.

[Tyler90AZ]

I think it is important that we teach children how to be independent. There was actually a good article in the ensign about not being a helicopter parent. I was very happy to see that after I read in Miracle of Forgiveness a year ago, paraphrasing, "heaven forbid our children become independent." If we don't teach our children how to make choices they will be in deep trouble when the time comes.

As far as being too strict with kids I like the saying, "spirit of the law not letter of the law." It is important that we invite the spirit into our home as much as possible. If it takes breaking the strict rules of the gospel once in awhile that is fine. I don't want to be seen as a gospel nazi by my children. I want them to know the gospel enhanced life and made it happier.

Now from my observation, hate to say it, is that strong gospel families have their children go one of two ways. They are either very strong in the church or they go way off(drug addict level). I have struggled with that mightily. Thinking a lot about what could I do to ensure my kids don't go off the deep end. And no it is not just read the scriptures everyday, go to church, pray often etc. Although it is important to do that so we can show our children we love the gospel. It is also the tact with which we do things, how we teach and always inviting the spirit.

To me it is about always letting them feel the spirit; which is joy, peace, love etc. I like the talk last conference about needing to be converted to the gospel and not just the church. We need to convert our kids to the gospel first, then the church falls into place.

[Vort]

As far as being too strict with kids I like the saying, "spirit of the law not letter of the law."

In almost every case, living the spirit of the law is much more difficult and much more strict than living the letter of the law.

The letter of the law (if you wish to call it a "law") is to avoid R-rated movies. The spirit of the law is to avoid all inappropriate films that glorify evil, make sacred things common, and expose us to filth in word or action -- which would by definition include all R-rated movies, but would include most or all PG-13 and a large number of PG movies, as well. Christ's teachings "it has been said of old...but I say unto you..." form a whole series of examples of spirit vs. letter. In each case, the spirit of the law is a much more rigorous standard.

People often use the "spirit of the law" argument to justify bad actions, e.g.:

If it takes breaking the strict rules of the gospel once in awhile that is fine.

But of course, the spirit of the law would never "[break] the strict rules of the gospel once in a while". And it most certainly would not be fine.

I don't want to be seen as a gospel nazi by my children.

I don't much care if my children see me as a "gospel nazi". Or, more correctly, I hope to teach my children to care enough about the word of God that they would never for a moment think that obedience equals "gospel naziism", and that in fact they would be offended at the very term.

[Guest]

Who said you had to soften everything?

You did.

You get to take your pick, either have things occasionally be mistaken for a statement of fact or make the effort to qualify. You asked how it was taken as a statement of fact, I answered that question.

The dialogue went like this:

Me: Stated a viewpoint based on my experience

Your wife: Asked for stats to back up my claim

Me: Stated that I don't have stats because the statement was based on my observations at which time I presented cases from my experiences as cases in point.

Your wife: Said, I shouldn't have stated it as fact.

Me: Said, I just explained where the statement came from so how would you take that as fact?

You: Defended your wife.

I'm good with occasionally mistaking what I say. I'm not good with snarkiness after I explained my position.

[Dravin]

You did.

Quote me saying you had to soften or qualify everything you said. You can't because I didn't say it. I said your lack of qualification and softening was how it could be perceived as a statement of fact. I did not say you must qualify or soften, though I did present a softener that would have precluded the misunderstanding to begin with. That however is not a statement that you must qualify. Interestingly I didn't take your comment as a statement of fact, just strong unqualified opinion, but I also understand how strong unqualified opinion can be taken as a statement of fact.

Here is the thing Anatess, you run into this kind of miss-communication quite a lot. You'd be best served reflecting on what it is about how you communicate and present yourself, both on an individual statement basis and in the collective, that your statements get perceived this way. At least better served then complaining, "But this other person isn't perceived this way!"

You tend to try to treat English like a function, "I input X and got Z but she input X and got Y!" That's not how it works. Not only is how you communicate things in isolation going to influence how it is perceived but also how you present yourself. Which is why you can't just grab Pam and go, "But she didn't get questioned!" Someone more analogous would be Vort, and he does spend a fair amount of time having to qualify and explain his statements after they are made so they aren't misconstrued from his intent. And for similar reasons, you both have a habit of presenting your positions strongly without or with minimal softening, which gets carried over into other statements you make even when you don't want them to. So it's not just what you say, or how you say it (though my answering of your question focused on that), but how you are perceived on the boards or within a community.

Pam? Pam isn't in the habit of presenting her positions in such a manner, so it doesn't tend to get carried over.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dravin

[Bini]

Vort, good posts. A year ago I might not feel the same way.

[Guest]

Quote me saying you had to soften or qualify everything you said. You can't because I didn't say it. I said your lack of qualification and softening was how it could be perceived as a statement of fact. I did not say you must qualify or soften, though I did present a softener that would have precluded the misunderstanding to begin with. That however is not a statement that you must qualify. Interestingly I didn't take your comment as a statement of fact, just strong unqualified opinion, but I also understand how strong unqualified opinion can be taken as a statement of fact.

Here is the thing Anatess, you run into this kind of miss-communication quite a lot. You'd be best served reflecting on what it is about how you communicate and present yourself, both on an individual statement basis and in the collective, that your statements get perceived this way. At least better served then complaining, "But this other person isn't perceived this way!"

You tend to try to treat English like a function, "I input X and got Z but she input X and got Y!" That's not how it works. Not only is how you communicate things in isolation going to influence how it is perceived but also how you present yourself. Which is why you can't just grab Pam and go, "But she didn't get questioned!" Someone more analogous would be Vort, and he does spend a fair amount of time having to qualify and explain his statements after they are made so they aren't misconstrued from his intent. And for similar reasons, you both have a habit of presenting your positions strongly without or with minimal softening, which gets carried over into other statements you make even when you don't want them to. So it's not just what you say, or how you say it (though my answering of your question focused on that), but how you are perceived on the boards or within a community.

Pam? Pam isn't in the habit of presenting her positions in such a manner, so it doesn't tend to get carried over.

Whatever, Dravin.

Here's your prize. You win.

Now back to the topic at hand.

[Windseeker]

The whole teach correct principles and let them govern themselves works well from an ecclesiastic standpoint, it does not work so well in parenting in my experience, only gradually as you're getting ready to unleash them upon the world.

[Guest]

The whole teach correct principles and let them govern themselves works well from an ecclesiastic standpoint, it does not work so well in parenting in my experience, only gradually as you're getting ready to unleash them upon the world.

Windseeker, how so? Can you share your experience?

I understand having to make certain decisions for young children as they struggle with self-mastery, but I still feel that self-mastery has to be the main goal - and this only works if you start self-mastery training from very very young when the stakes are still very low - e.g. the choice between drinking soda versus drinking water; it is easier to say "I forbid you to drink soda" but I tend to state ad nauseum the ill effects of soda and health benefits of water and see what they choose. This has been working for my kids since they've been old enough to understand what I'm saying. Of course, I don't put out dangerous choices on the table - I mean, they don't have to choose between soda, water, and rum, for example. So, it's still in a controlled environment.

Edited May 17, 2012 by anatess

[Dravin]

Whatever, Dravin.

Here's your prize. You win.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Funny how when you keep discussing something it is to 'make someone understand', but when you don't want to discuss anything anymore it's just the other guy trying to 'win'.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dravin