writing a letter

[pooter1]

I'm in the primary presidency and we are having a horrible time with behavior in the primary lately.We have a sister who loves loves the children and during sacrament meeting she passes out candy to them all.By the time they get to us it's horrible behavior.She has been asked by us and the bishop to wait till after church to pass out candy. Last sunday she was giving candy to the kids and putting her fingers to her lips as to tell them to not tell anyone. I am the lucky one that has to now write a letter to all the parents about giving candy to the kids.is this none of our business? Do I have right to do this for our sanity in primary? What would you do? How do you even start a letter like this? Any input would be GREATLY appreciated.

[Dravin]

Why are you writing a letter to everyone if a single person is the problem? Particularly if that single person didn't change their behavior from being asked twice. I guess I just see a letter as having less impact, not more, than a face to face request from both the Primary Presidency and the Bishopric.

[beefche]

I wouldn't write a letter to all parents if one is the problem. Confront her directly. Take her aside somewhere private and talk to her about the impact the candy is having on the children. Tell her that both you and the bishop have asked her to refrain from giving candy. You are asking her again. This time, ask her "Will you stop giving candy to the children? And will you begin that today and that continues from this point on?"

You can do this kindly, but be direct. Don't hem/haw about things. Just point out how her behavior is impacting the kids/families in the ward. Then get a committment from her to stop doing it.

If she then continues to do it, I'd put it at the bishop's feet.

[MarginOfError]

I'm having a hard time believing that the candy being distributed during sacrament meeting is the root cause of the behavior problems in Primary, unless the kids are fighting over the candy. I assume you mean that they're hyped up on sugar and so can't behave. But the level of sugar in most small candies isn't enough to have that great an effect on your typical kid's behavior and it probably wouldn't be that acute an effect.

I would look for other causes of behavioral problems. I don't believe you'll see much improvement from stopping the candy.

having said that, I think it's inappropriate for her to be distributing candy, especially if it's being kept quiet from the parents. Any edible item given to a child ought to be done with the consent of the parents unless the child is old enough to manage their own diet.

[classylady]

I'm having a hard time believing that the candy being distributed during sacrament meeting is the root cause of the behavior problems in Primary, unless the kids are fighting over the candy. I assume you mean that they're hyped up on sugar and so can't behave. But the level of sugar in most small candies isn't enough to have that great an effect on your typical kid's behavior and it probably wouldn't be that acute an effect.

I would look for other causes of behavioral problems. I don't believe you'll see much improvement from stopping the candy.

having said that, I think it's inappropriate for her to be distributing candy, especially if it's being kept quiet from the parents. Any edible item given to a child ought to be done with the consent of the parents unless the child is old enough to manage their own diet.

I agree with MarginofError here. A few small pieces of candy probably wouldn't be making the children all that hyper. And even if that particular woman stopped giving out candies, how could you stop the parents from feeding their children sugary cereal, and other sweet treats before church.

If a letter to all the parents is going to be written, I wouldn't bother mentioning candy. I would just mention something along the lines of this: There has been a problem with reverence, and the primary is going to focus on this and would like the parents assistance.

[pam]

I think I'd be worried that someone randomly handing out candy would give one to a child who has a food allergy. There are some that are allergic to nuts or peanut butter. I mean deathly allergic. Kids are kids and what kid would turn down candy not realizing the health risk that might come with that acceptance?

[Anddenex]

I think I'd be worried that someone randomly handing out candy would give one to a child who has a food allergy. There are some that are allergic to nuts or peanut butter. I mean deathly allergic. Kids are kids and what kid would turn down candy not realizing the health risk that might come with that acceptance?

We actually have one of these children in our primary right now. She is so allergic to peanuts, the item will hurt her even if the candy was made in the same place where peanuts are distributed.

[pam]

We actually have one of these children in our primary right now. She is so allergic to peanuts, the item will hurt her even if the candy was made in the same place where peanuts are distributed.

I think that's why food manufacturing places have to now put warnings on their labels that state something along the line of: "Made in a factory that uses nut ingredients."

[Anddenex]

I think that's why food manufacturing places have to now put warnings on their labels that state something along the line of: "Made in a factory that uses nut ingredients."

I am in understanding the same.

[pam]

Maybe the Bishop needs to put it out at the pulpit.

[Dravin]

Maybe the Bishop needs to put it out at the pulpit.

Unless we're going to call her out and try to publicly shame her (No, I don't think you're recommending such), I would suspect face to face requests to be harder to disregard than an over the pulpit announcement. And she's already disregarded a face to face request. Though I suppose it may stop any other candy givers.

[pam]

There are tactful ways a Bishop can approach a subject without specifically calling someone out. Are we worried about offending the one or do we show concern for the health of some that we may not even know have health issues with certain food items?

[RMGuy]

You asked for opinions....I think, so here is mine.

It is none of the primary presidencies or the bishoprics business. From my viewpoint the gospel is predicated on agency. Can you ask her to stop? Yes. Can the bishop ask her to stop? Yes. Have you done that? Yes....so now what?

If she wants to keep doing it, the kids continue to accept it, and the kids parents are willing to allow it, then why does it become our locus of control?

If it bothers the presidency that much then they can ask to be released and let someone else deal with the shenanigans. From my view point, this sounds very much like a situation in which I don't like what someone else is doing so I want to force them to stop....sounds a bit like a plan I heard once before, it's vague and I can't remember all the details, but something about forcing everyone to be good.

-RM

[pam]

You asked for opinions....I think, so here is mine.

It is none of the primary presidencies or the bishoprics business. From my viewpoint the gospel is predicated on agency. Can you ask her to stop? Yes. Can the bishop ask her to stop? Yes. Have you done that? Yes....so now what?

If she wants to keep doing it, the kids continue to accept it, and the kids parents are willing to allow it, then why does it become our locus of control?

If it bothers the presidency that much then they can ask to be released and let someone else deal with the shenanigans. From my view point, this sounds very much like a situation in which I don't like what someone else is doing so I want to force them to stop....sounds a bit like a plan I heard once before, it's vague and I can't remember all the details, but something about forcing everyone to be good.

-RM

I appreciate your opinion. As much as I disagree. Sometimes you are dealing with the lives of people and I think at some point someone needs to step in, albeit harshly at times.

[RMGuy]

Pam,

I get what you are saying, and clearly there are times to step in. You better believe if I see my child beating on a neighbor kid with a baseball bat I'm going to take his agency away...lol!

Nothing I have read regarding this situation however rises to that level. I haven't read about any kids getting sick, or individuals that could be irrevocably harmed (food allergies). Rather what I have read is that we have a sweet (pun intended) sister in the ward that enjoys treating (pun intended) the primary children of her ward. We have children that look forward to these treats. We have a primary presidency that does not.

This falls squarely, in my mind, into a situation that seems to be "I don't like what you like and so you must stop". I think it is fine to talk with this sister and express your concern, even talk to the bishop and express your concern. But taking it beyond that seems to be overstepping the mark.

If there was an individual experiencing harm and this was brought to her attention and nothing changed, then my opinion would be different.

-RM

[Vort]

Just a reminder of something we probably all know:

It is impossible to remove another's agency. You can tie them down, lock them in a dungeon, or even kill them. Doesn't matter. Their agency remains perfectly intact and untouched. Any argument that hinges on the idea of forcibly removing another's agency may be safely ignored as irrelevant.

[EarlJibbs]

You asked for opinions....I think, so here is mine.

It is none of the primary presidencies or the bishoprics business. From my viewpoint the gospel is predicated on agency. Can you ask her to stop? Yes. Can the bishop ask her to stop? Yes. Have you done that? Yes....so now what?

If she wants to keep doing it, the kids continue to accept it, and the kids parents are willing to allow it, then why does it become our locus of control?

If it bothers the presidency that much then they can ask to be released and let someone else deal with the shenanigans. From my view point, this sounds very much like a situation in which I don't like what someone else is doing so I want to force them to stop....sounds a bit like a plan I heard once before, it's vague and I can't remember all the details, but something about forcing everyone to be good.

-RM

I agree that the candy may not be the problem, but I respectively disagree with the rest. Here is why. If the Bishop who presides over the ward and the Primary President who presides over the primary see this as an issue... is that not enough to ask them to stop? Even continually? How many times have you seen someone be reminded that they should attend class over and over and over instead of hanging out in the foyers. Adding on to that, how many times have we been asked to get our home teaching done. I see no difference with the proper people in charge addressing what they see as a disruption or a problem. Although I understand that home teaching is not just something we are asked to do, I think it still applies by us being repeatedly asked to do it.

To the OP, a letter to everyone is probably not needed. Just keep asking that it stops.

Edited August 24, 2012 by EarlJibbs

[Bini]

Just a reminder of something we probably all know:

It is impossible to remove another's agency. You can tie them down, lock them in a dungeon, or even kill them. Doesn't matter. Their agency remains perfectly intact and untouched. Any argument that hinges on the idea of forcibly removing another's agency may be safely ignored as irrelevant.

Vort, since I have misunderstood your posts before, please clarify if I am doing so now.

I agree that agency cannot be taken away. God has given all of us "agency". There was a movie I watched a long time ago, and a woman was being raped by a guard in prison. This went on during the course of her imprisonment. Another inmate knew this was happening, and said to her along the lines of, "He's taken everything from you." The woman replied, "He may have my body but he will never have my soul." It struck a powerful chord in me. We can be forced into situations but our agency and our spirits in how we deal with it is solely up to us. My question is, Vort, what would be an accurate description to you, when someone is forced into something against their will?

[Vort]

My question is, Vort, what would be an accurate description to you, when someone is forced into something against their will?

You mean what word describes that which has been taken? "Deprived of liberty", perhaps. Or "enslaved". I'm not really sure.

A turning point in my life came when I realized and understood deep down in my reptilian brainstem that *I* was responsible for my life and for my reactions. I could not always control what happened to me, but I could always control my response. This knowledge was both awful and freeing, as such knowledge always is -- awful because it meant that I truly had no one to blame but myself, and freeing because the other side of that coin is that I get to choose who I am without being at the mercy of everyone else. So obviously I'm not very good at this self-determination thing (yet), but I still count that as one of the truly profound realizations of my life. I am an agent. I get to decide. No one can take that away from me.

[RMGuy]

@EarlJibbs,

No problem at all with asking her to stop again, but you have done that once or twice. So now what?

-RM

[Dravin]

There are tactful ways a Bishop can approach a subject without specifically calling someone out.

Yes there are, and I don't see how they'd be less likely to be disregarded by someone who has disregarded a direct request. The only over the pulpit announcement I really see upping the ante any is if it's a public call out and shaming, but since we clearly don't want to go that route I doubt the efficacy of an over the pulpit announcement as it pertains to the candy giver in question heeding the request.

Are we worried about offending the one or do we show concern for the health of some that we may not even know have health issues with certain food items?

Potentially offending her isn't my point. My point is if she disregarded a direct request from the Bishop I see an over the pulpit announcement (done in a not calling out and non-shaming way) as being insufficient for the job*. To put it in another context it's like offering someone $15 to mow your lawn after they refused your offer of $25.

*For a different Job, reaching others who haven't been directly requested and whom are unaware of leadership's desires, it may be sufficient.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Dravin

[RMGuy]

Let's try it from this perspective.

How do we think Christ would treat this sister? What if she refused to head his request, how would he respond?

-RM

[EarlJibbs]

@EarlJibbs,

No problem at all with asking her to stop again, but you have done that once or twice. So now what?

-RM

Ask again. I think I see what you are getting at...really nothing more severe you can do right? I am with you. Give her a calling that doesnt allow her so much time before the meeting? Maybe chorister?

[RMGuy]

Now see THAT is a creative solution!

-RM

[pooter1]

I've read all of your comments and so greatly appreciate the advice.The reason we are sending a letter to everyone in our ward is we hope that when the sister tries to give candy to the kids the PARENTS will say no. Also YES primary kids are hyper anyway when they come to us but the candy makes it worse. I kind of like asking the bishop to say in general to the whole ward over the pulpit that the primary has asked that no candy be given to the children before primary. Not to single this one sister out but put it in everyones hands to help us.