When Does Homeschooling Fail?

[Guest]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Well, considering our Heavenly parents have sent us here and exposed us to evil so we understand it, and in some instances FAR worse than the crackhouse...I see your point in regards to their example.

Not all at once. 

Remember that part and parcel to the plan were earthly families.  It is we mortals who are messing up the plan.  And the prophets have spoken again and again (Proclamation on the Family, anyone?) about the importance of the family in the Plan.

Children are supposed to be raised by their parents to learn right from wrong AND learn how to stand up to it.  The D&C specifically AT LEAST gives us the guideline of 8 years old.  Yet we're so willing at 5 years old to give that job over to others who may or may not share our values.

EXAMPLE:

I was visiting another family during the day.  I was in a far room, but I got a chance to hear them talk about behavior at other people's houses.  Their 13 y.o. son was about to go over to a friend's house.  And they asked him,"Ok, so if they do X, what are you going to do?"  Depending on what the X was, it varied from asking them to not do X, or walk out or call home to get picked up.  It was interesting that they took the time to go line by line and explain what they could possibly expect.  But what was more telling about the parental upbringing was that the by responded and knew exactly what to do.  They had obviously gone over this many times before.

I have no problem believing that this boy was capable of doing the right thing.  But at that age, he still needed reminding.  So, they gave it to them.  But to have to do that every day when they send kids to school?  Such a process every day?  No, limiting their interviews was actaully MORE effective in this case.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

Really?  I seem to remember a story about a guy who followed all God's commandments perfectly, and I don't recall anything about Him being socially inept.

21 hours ago, Fether said:

I had a mission companion that did homeschooling and his social skills were almost non-existent. I absolutely loved him and we had a ton of fun, he also was exactly obedient and did a great job of chastising when needed.

You didn't read that very well, did you?

Quote

Um, no.  What they heard was, "I'm a weirdo."  Nobody wants to go to the jiggly room with some dude that's going to try to order chocolate milk.

I honestly can't tell when you're joking or when you're serious because either way, you're usually very sarcastic.  But just in case, you meant it.

You can hear what you want to hear.  But that is not what they were thinking.  Believe it or not, at the office I'm usually highly respected and well-liked.  They know I' can be a goof-ball at times (ok.  maybe most of the time).  But they know they can depend on me when it really counts.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i guess i don't see being a (what some might call overly) gentle and fragile person as at all a negative thing. 

Agree.

10 hours ago, lostinwater said:

i guess i don't see being a (what some might call overly) gentle and fragile person as at all a negative thing. 

Disagree.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You can hear what you want to hear.  But that is not what they were thinking.  Believe it or not, at the office I'm usually highly respected and well-liked.  They know I' can be a goof-ball at times (ok.  maybe most of the time).  But they know they can depend on me when it really counts.

Most people here feel the same way about you @Carborendum, so any disagreement we have isn't personal.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

 and it's not evil to be fragile or weak.

It's a bit of semantics I suppose. But I think, as how I'm thinking on it, that it is, indeed. (Though you somewhat addressed that in the rest of your post).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Most people here feel the same way about you @Carborendum, so any disagreement we have isn't personal.

LOL!  Yes, I caught that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

LOL!  Yes, I caught that. 

Well, I wasn't trying to be funny and I don't really disagree with you on this issue. Just saying how we feel about you. 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think it’s a matter of *deliberately* exposing our kids to evil so that they can “understand” it.  I think it’s more a matter of acknowledging that—whether in college, or in the workplace—they will encounter evil eventually; and the question then becomes whether we want to be there and in a position to do some measure of damage control when, for the first time, the world starts pushing back against everything we’ve tried to teach them.  Thats the impression I got from @JohnsonJones.  It isn’t necessarily the be-all, end-all consideration here; but it does seem to me that twelve years of “safe space” can actually work against you if the transition into “real life” isn’t very carefully handled.  It would be interesting to see LDS-oriented data about what percentage of home-schooled versus public schooled kids wind up serving missions, marrying in the temple, and remaining active five, ten, and twenty years after turning 18.

I don’t think there’s a universal answer here—it’s a balancing test where you have to look at the quality of your local schools, the caliber of kids (and their families) who attend those schools, community standards of behavior, social and family supports, nearby home-schooling resources, and the time/skillset/health/competing obligations of the parent who would be doing the homeschooling.  

I'm not sure I understand the logic here.

Question: What is the best source/means of handling evil when it is encountered?

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Well, I wasn't trying to be funny and I don't really disagree with you on this issue. Just saying how we feel about you. 

OK.  My bad.  Maybe I'm more self-depricating than my friends tend to be.  Bottom line is I know you love me, bro.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure I understand the logic here.

Question: What is the best source/means of handling evil when it is encountered?

To have it shunned/rebutted, of course.

Follow-up questions:  

—Is evil always immediately recognizable the first time it is encountered?

—Can our in-home efforts thoroughly inoculate our kids against every problematic social/ philosophical/ historical/ doctrinal/ pseudo-scientific theory that our kids are likely to encounter in college?  

—As our eighteen-year-old offspring go off to college, will give their parents any moral or intellectual credibility if they feel we have spent their entire childhoods deliberately shielding them from (or “misrepresenting”) the exciting new secularist theories they are encountering for the very first time?

—The first day your kid hears an academic superior suggesting—say—that sexual promiscuity is psychologically healthy, or that “the Spirit” is merely a manifestation of physiological events inside the brain:  Where do you want your kid to have dinner that day?  In your home, or in some college dorm dining hall halfway across the country?

Edited April 7, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To have it shunned/rebutted, of course.

I think you'd better re-read my question. Skip the /means and just use "source" to get a better sense of what I'm asking.

What is the best source we have for handling evil?

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Is evil always immediately recognizable the first time it is encountered?

Depends. Sometimes. Depends. Who's the one encountering it? What was their background? How were they raised? What were they taught? How close to the Holy Spirit are they? Etc?

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Can our in-home efforts thoroughly inoculate our kids against every problematic social/ philosophical/ historical/ doctrinal/ pseudo-scientific theory that our kids are likely to encounter in college?  

Emphatically....YES!

Understand I am answering the question as it is written and not the question, "Will our in-home efforts...."

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—As our eighteen-year-old offspring go off to college, will give their parents any moral or intellectual credibility if they feel we have spent their entire childhoods deliberately shielding them from (or “misrepresenting”) the exciting new secularist theories they are encountering for the very first time?

Irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—The first day your kid hears an academic superior suggesting—say—that sexual promiscuity is psychologically healthy, or that “the Spirit” is merely a manifestation of physiological events inside the brain:  Where do you want your kid to have dinner that day?  In your home, or in some college dorm dining hall halfway across the country?

Why, may I ask, would a parent not have already addressed such ideas with their children? Are these parent's we speak of lazy, apathetic morons?

Edited April 7, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[NeuroTypical]

Your job as parents, is to create capable, moral, grounded, wise, adults, who are able and wiling to contribute to their community - and release them on the world.   Encountering and triumphing over evil/nasty/horrible/difficult/annoying stuff, is part of the deal.  The trick, is to know which e/n/h/d/a stuff to throw your kids into the middle of, so they can triumph, and which stuff to protect them from, because it will destroy them.

You will sometimes choose correctly, and sometimes choose incorrectly.  Additionally, your kid will have a say in such things, and will stymie or aid your efforts, depending on the type of kid God sent you, and their mood at the time.

There is no manual.  Well, there is, but it is principle-driven, and lends to many different ways to apply in real life.

Choose wisely.

Edited April 7, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

Quote

Understand I am answering the question as it is written and not the question, "Will our in-home efforts...."

Quite so; but understand that similarly I am not saying home-schooling is bad or inadequate in every situation.  One of the things that irritates me about these sorts of discussions is how we tend to compare the best applications/results of our own pet educational theories against the worst applications/results of competing theories.

It sounds, @The Folk Prophet, like you are generally gravitating to the idea that if we live righteously so as to have the Spirit with us, we will immediately be warned of any dangerous ideas and will have both the spiritual and intellectual wherewithal to resist them.

This may work for some—even many—personality types.  It doesn’t work for everyone.  If it did, the Church would have had no need to publish the recent Gospel Topics essays, for example.  People hear stuff, and they get curious, and then they start wondering why they didn’t hear it earlier (or why the version they were presented doesn’t match the version being advanced by the people who know the material best); which brings me to the last part of your response:  

Quote

Why, may I ask, would a parent not have already addressed such ideas with their children? Are these parent's we speak of lazy, apathetic morons?

Of course not.  But note my framing:  I asked what happens when they hear it from an “academic superior”.  The simple fact is that I can’t describe the case for Communism (for example) nearly as well as a communist political science professor could.  What happens when my kid thinks “well, this guy’s more educated than Dad is, and he makes it sound totally different (and better!)  than what Dad describes”?  

If the kid’s already had some moonbat high school teachers, (s)he won’t be nearly so cowed by the authority and intellectual pyrotechnics of a college professor even if (s)he doesn’t yet have the intellectual background to refute them point for point.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Quite so; but understand that similarly I am not saying home-schooling is bad or inadequate in every situation.  One of the things that irritates me about these sorts of discussions is how we tend to compare the best applications/results of our own pet educational theories against the worst applications/results of competing theories.

Maybe that's part of the problem. I, for myself, am not discussing educational theories.

I know that sounds funny when we're literally discussion "schooling". But I'm not concerned about the schooling part. I'm concerned with all the other stuff and weighing that (and the value of schooling itself) against an eternal perspective.

As far as weighing the best of one against the worst of another, I'm not sure that's what I'm doing. I am simply doing my best to choose based on what is of eternal value.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It sounds, @The Folk Prophet, like you are generally gravitating to the idea that if we live righteously so as to have the Spirit with us, we will immediately be warned of any dangerous ideas and will have both the spiritual and intellectual wherewithal to resist them.

I wouldn't put it exactly that way. It sounds approximately like what I gravitate towards...except the usage of the word "immediately".

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This may work for some—even many—personality types.  It doesn’t work for everyone.  

I suspect we may not come to an agreement on this point.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If it did, the Church would have had no need to publish the recent Gospel Topics essays, for example.  

Well...putting aside the argument that the church actually doesn't have a "need" to have published them....

I don't see how this is relevant. Just because someone faces a challenge after they leave home doesn't mean all of a sudden they're an island unto themselves. They still have scriptures, church materials, fellow faithful members, parents to call home to, institute teachers, and a whole host of other means to deal with issues they might face.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

People hear stuff, and they get curious, and then they start wondering why they didn’t hear it earlier (or why the version they were presented doesn’t match the version being advanced by the people who know the material best)

I faced all that after I left home. Wasn't a major problem -- primarily because I had been taught to have faith, trust in the Lord and not on the arm of flesh, etc. and MOSTLY because I had been directed to develop a testimony of Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and the Church/Gospel through pondering, prayer, study and faith.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I asked what happens when they hear it from an “academic superior”. 

Hopefully, due to a parent having raised and taught them right, they'll be mature, confident, faithful, and intelligent enough to realize that no matter how academically superior any mortal being seems, there is a higher knowledge upon which they will place their trust.

It's not a complicated matter really. It comes down to faith, humility, and trust in the Lord or not.

But, regardless, the implication seems to be that if they first face these sorts of dilemmas at college that it'll be a bigger stumbling block because they aren't eating dinner with their parents that night. That suggestion seems odd to me. It strikes me that a parent who strives to both discuss such things with their children and who have the type of relationship that their children would even tell them of the struggle in the first place, would still have that sort of relationship with their college age children living away from home. I know I call my mom and ask her advice and counsel all the time still.

Of course, perhaps your (and others' implication) is that we want our children to face these problems when they're young enough to be simply naive enough to trust their parents' "don't listen to that evil" replies. I don't see how that changes a thing once they mature enough to think for themselves. In point of fact, the idea that they've been carefully guided while they are young and naive by a single source of wisdom in preparation for dealing with difficult things seems a much, much better idea to me.

When I was in college and some teacher tried to tell me that morality was relative I was easily able to see through the nonsense "academia". If I'd been introduces to that idea when I was 8 it might have been much more confusing -- with potentially long-term effects despite the efforts of my parents to counter it after the fact. Philosophies of men that are pleasing to the carnal mind are pleasing to the carnal mind -- and that is pleasing to the young, immature mind, and easier to embrace without some maturity.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The simple fact is that I can’t describe the case for Communism (for example) nearly as well as a communist political science professor could.

I'll put aside the fact that I do not believe that is true.

Yes. There will always be someone who is smarter. The key, clearly, is to teach our children that there is one who is smarter than all, and only He is worthy of our complete trust.

But I don't understand how it is that you seem to be making the case that if said communist political science genius happens to be teaching your 16-year-old in high school, dumb-ol' dad can do a better job of refuting said genius because it's at the dinner table than he can over the phone to his 22-year-old.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If the kid’s already had some moonbat high school teachers, (s)he won’t be nearly so cowed by intellectial pyrotechnics from a college professor even if (s)he doesn’t yet have the intellectual background to refute them point for point.

Seriously...I don't follow the logic. If they have moonbat high-school teachers they won't be swayed but if they have moonbat college professors they will?

Why? Is a college professor magically more convincing than a high school teacher? Moreover...and more importantly...is a college student more gullible than a high school student?

Edited April 7, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Is evil always immediately recognizable the first time it is encountered?

I'd say "detectable" rather than recognizable.  I've come across too many situations where I felt something prick me spiritually.  But it is often so subtle that I don't truly "recognize" what it was.  Only after I've had a moment to look back and analyze it do I realize what that very subtle prick was.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Can our in-home efforts thoroughly inoculate our kids against every problematic social/ philosophical/ historical/ doctrinal/ pseudo-scientific theory that our kids are likely to encounter in college?  

Of course not.  That's why I spoke of the whole armor of God.  No mortal is so wise and knowledgeable that he can hope to combat all evil in the world that might be thrown at them.  Satan has at least 6000 years of studying all the divers means of evil on this earth for us to truly be able to take care of it.  But the Armor of God, when properly used, will protect us.  And I believe that those in public school  -- especially in today's world are at such a spiritual disadvantage, that they may not make it through basic training before they're lost.

And when all else fails, that is what repentance is for.

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—As our eighteen-year-old offspring go off to college, will give their parents any moral or intellectual credibility if they feel we have spent their entire childhoods deliberately shielding them from (or “misrepresenting”) the exciting new secularist theories they are encountering for the very first time?

—The first day your kid hears an academic superior suggesting—say—that sexual promiscuity is psychologically healthy, or that “the Spirit” is merely a manifestation of physiological events inside the brain:  Where do you want your kid to have dinner that day?  In your home, or in some college dorm dining hall halfway across the country?

Interesting term "shielding".  I believe that's conflating "protecting" vs. "keeping them in ignorance" based on the context above.  This sounds too much like "teaching children the law of chastity means they won't know how to have kids when they get married."  Uhmm.. No.

We protect them, so far as possible, from the evils of the world and the lies the adversary would teach them.  But if we deliberately keep them ignorant of those things, I'd believe we're doing them a disservice.  I can't speak for everyone, but I have PPIs with my children as often as I can to teach them exactly what the world is like and what lies are our there -- not only about right and wrong, but I also go over anti-Mormon literature and go over apologetics' responses to them as well as the simple truth about such accusations.  You have to.  Why would you not?  Basically, I'm teaching my children to become apologists.

But it is like going through a simulation rather than a real event.  Drivers have to see films and when I was a kid, we had driving simulators we had to log hours on before driving.  Pilots have to go through a flying simulator.  Just ask Elder Uchtdorf.  Why would you not put your children through the spiritual equivalent at home in a safe and controlled setting?

And on the flip side of the coin, what guarantees do you have that your child will simply accept what the teacher says in public school without even bringing it up to you?

We had an online Christian based homeschool program that we subscribed to.  One day my (I believe 10 year old at the time) son was crying in front of the computer.  Apparently, the "history" course contained an excerpt directly from an anti-Mormon tract when going over the history of Illinois in the 1800s.  We were able to address it because we saw him crying AT HOME.  But if he had that happen in public school, he would have cried.  The teacher would have comforted him and said that he would just have to let his faith go because now he knows the truth.  After he calmed down, they'd talk nice and sweet to him and warn him not to tell his parents.  And we would lose him.

When I read the material, we went over every item, line by line.  After we were about half way through, he finally got the idea and said, "OK, I get it.  Don't pay attention to them."  Even then, I had to correct him.  No, you can't just "not pay attention".  Look for answers.  Don't just let it fester.  Find the truth behind it.  But have faith as you do so.

[jewels8]

I grew up in a good public school system in Southern California.  I had good teachers, was a good student, got mostly A's and B's, enjoyed school and learning, and I didn't encounter many problems.  There was a bully or two, but not too bad, and I never saw drugs or things like that, even though I know they existed.  I went to early morning seminary and was taught in a  morally good setting, generally.  My husband also had a public education in Wyoming and Utah that seemed pretty good, as well.  Our kids have been going to public school.  Our oldest graduated, and our 2nd will graduate this year-but both have special needs and are/will be in post hs programs.  Our other kids have recently expressed concern for public school.  In Jan, we let them start a homeschool program at another LDS friend's home,  they do the online Dr. Glen J. Kimber Academy, a private LDS based school.   Also, our kids are in a Friday co-op, to have a social environment, on Mondays too.  For the most part, it is a good thing.  Dr. Kimber and his wife are very patriotic, and use the Gospel in their teaching of the subject matter.  The only things that I wish were more different is that my friend has the classes in bedrooms, they are sitting at a table with chairs, but my 13 year old girl, and her best friend and her brother (14) are in his bedroom.  I didn't know this at first and am trying to change it, as I don't feel it is the best setting.  I know they already kind of "like" each other, even though they act like typical friends.  I think of The Strength of Youth pamphlet, and I want to keep a good foundation for my kids.  I wasn't aware at first that they were in bedrooms, well, and at first they were at the kitchen table.  My younger son and his friend, a girl are at a table and chairs in the parents  bedroom upstairs, they are 9 .  And the teens are downstairs.  

      The 2nd thing that bothers me is that even though this is school, there is an incentive every year for the kids to raise $2,000 to go on a  trip with the Kimbers to Israel.  Parents can go too (which is an additional $2,000)  But, who has that kind of money?  Not us!  We also have a severe special needs kid who we couldn't take with us or have watched.  I don't like the idea of sending my daughter half way across the world like that, even if they are in an LDS group.  My husband is for it, but I'm not.  I need to work to support our family.  My friend, who is "rich"  just keeps saying it would be a good experience for them.  Why don't they use the money to help the starving people of this world?    They would be going on an archeological tour and seeing I guess places the Savior had been to increase their testimony.  A wonderful thought, but an expensive way to increase one's testimony.  And not necessary.  I don't like my kids feeling excited about doing this when I don't feel its the best thing or best timing.  We already borrow money from my mom, or have, why should we raise up money and do that?  It just doesn't seem right, or possible with our other kid or with my need to work.  My friend knows our situation, but just can't seem to control her own impulses and then my kids and husband think they need to focus on this.

       The 3rd thing is that Dr. Kimber's criteria for them to graduate from high school, from his private school, to get a diploma, is that they have to do a 4,000 fact thesis on history facts on what they call "hook dates"   These are special dates in history.  They study these dates in class.  They need 1,000 from The Book of Mormon, 1,000 from American history, and so on.  I don't know how any body can come up with 100 facts about The Brother of Jared, etc.  I don't know.  It seems a bit much for high school.  Its not college.  Dr. Kimber has been doing this for like 30 years, but still it seems a bit much for  a high school graduate.  That's a lot of writing to do,  every week for 5 years to get it done.  

        The public schools in Utah right now, at least where we are, seem to be pretty good.  I mean, they haven't been indoctrinated with some of the disgusting things other states have, but it is important to be careful.  There is so much going on nowadays.  Its too bad things have changed.  I just wish some of this homeschooling could be a little easier and a better match with what public schools were doing when I was growing up.  I really wish these private ones didn't have such crazy and time consuming rules or that I have to deal with issues that I was trying to avoid.

I have sent an email to my friend about the class room and to Dr. Kimber.  I want my kids to be comfortable with their education, and they do enjoy their homeschool, I just don't want it to be to much or become a problem  for our family.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

Our other kids have recently expressed concern for public school.  In Jan, we let them start a homeschool program at another LDS friend's home,  they do the online Dr. Glen J. Kimber Academy, a private LDS based school.   Also, our kids are in a Friday co-op, to have a social environment, on Mondays too.  For the most part, it is a good thing.  Dr. Kimber and his wife are very patriotic, and use the Gospel in their teaching of the subject matter.  The only things that I wish were more different is that my friend has the classes in bedrooms, they are sitting at a table with chairs, but my 13 year old girl, and her best friend and her brother (14) are in his bedroom.  I didn't know this at first and am trying to change it, as I don't feel it is the best setting.  I know they already kind of "like" each other, even though they act like typical friends.  I think of The Strength of Youth pamphlet, and I want to keep a good foundation for my kids.  I wasn't aware at first that they were in bedrooms, well, and at first they were at the kitchen table.  My younger son and his friend, a girl are at a table and chairs in the parents  bedroom upstairs, they are 9 .  And the teens are downstairs.  

You don't have them in homeschool because their parents are not the teachers.  You have them in a private school which happens to be in someone's home.  You can't treat it like a homeschool.  You have to treat it like a private school.  And that costs money.

If you're not paying anything to this other family, then you've got free babysitters who are willing to do you some favors.  If you don't like the way they're doing it, then you can just take them back and teach them at home.

Homeschool is if you or your husband are teaching your children.

[askandanswer]

I think that consideration of this question could be more informed by the idea that we should be in the world and not of the world. Homeschooling seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we should be in the world. I like the point that @JohnsonJones made earlier that our Heavenly Father sent us away from home for our schooling. Effectively, our mortal experience is like being at boarding school.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think that consideration of this question could be more informed by the idea that we should be in the world and not of the world

I know that's a popular saying, but I know of no such scriptural injunction. I do know of scriptures that say "come ye out from Babylon" and "be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord".

13 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Homeschooling seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we should be in the world.

...you think that homeschooling takes place on another planet?

If you mean "in the world" in a societal manner, I'd suggest that runs exactly counter to what we are commanded. Just how "in the world" ought we to be? Drug usage? Promiscuous sex? Profanity?

We are in the world. It's our mortal condition. We can't escape it, at least not until death. We don't need any commandment to be "in the world". Here we are.

On the other hand, we have numerous scriptural injunctions to separate ourselves from the practices of the world and be holy.

I can see how homeschooling could be a useful adjunct to these commandments. For the life of me, I can't see how homeschooling would violate God's commandments, in any possible sense.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Your job as parents, is to create capable, moral, grounded, wise, adults, who are able and wiling to contribute to their community - and release them on the world.   Encountering and triumphing over evil/nasty/horrible/difficult/annoying stuff, is part of the deal.  The trick, is to know which e/n/h/d/a stuff to throw your kids into the middle of, so they can triumph, and which stuff to protect them from, because it will destroy them.

You will sometimes choose correctly, and sometimes choose incorrectly.  Additionally, your kid will have a say in such things, and will stymie or aid your efforts, depending on the type of kid God sent you, and their mood at the time.

There is no manual.  Well, there is, but it is principle-driven, and lends to many different ways to apply in real life.

Choose wisely.

From a certain point of view, I think that unless a person is somewhat psychotic, in today's day and age you can pretty much count on your children facing e/n/h/d/a stuff no matter what you do, and the very best efforts you can give should be thoroughly dedicated to protecting them from it because the risk of it destroying them is so great. I don't think parents really need to make much of an effort to "throw [their] kids into the middle" of much intentionally.

[NeuroTypical]

54 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Homeschooling seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we should be in the world.

My wife prepared our kids to encounter people who would assume there was something wrong just because they were homeschooled.    We totally had this bumper sticker for opinions like these.

 

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You can hear what you want to hear.  But that is not what they were thinking.  Believe it or not, at the office I'm usually highly respected and well-liked.  They know I' can be a goof-ball at times (ok.  maybe most of the time).  But they know they can depend on me when it really counts.

Irrelevant; just because I can depend on someone doesn't mean I particularly respect anything about them other than their reliability.  Frankly, the top three people outside my family that I know I can count on to do everything in their power to help me any time I really need it are a pothead, a crystal meth burnout and a neurotic (as confirmed by a court-ordered psych eval) slacker.  Certainly no paragons of any virtue other than loyalty, but they are reliable, and I would do or have done the same for them.  (And yes, either way, we're likely to be yelling at each other at some point about our respective and continuing lifestyle choices as they pertain to whatever emergency we're dealing with, generally with a great deal of obscenity and escalating to as much hurtful insult as we can think of, as we're doing what needs done.  Yes, it's dysfunctional, but actually fairly tame compared to the last 8-9 months of my marriage...and my ex wife was never reliable.)

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

The 2nd thing that bothers me is that even though this is school, there is an incentive every year for the kids to raise $2,000 to go on a  trip with the Kimbers to Israel.

$2,000 for a trip to Israel?  Unless you live in Egypt or they're being smuggled both ways in crates, that's a great deal.  Sending a Scout to National Jamboree is $975 and that doesn't include travel costs or anything else the troop does with the travel time, which usually includes at least a few hundred more in admissions to various museums and such.  Adding it all up, it's easily well over $2,000 for a few days in DC and a week of camping in WV.

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

My friend, who is "rich"  just keeps saying it would be a good experience for them.  Why don't they use the money to help the starving people of this world?

Because providing a once in a lifetime opportunity for their children is the sort of thing that most parents earn money to do.  After all, couldn't you provide a few hundred pounds of rice each year to the starving people by making your kids' clothes yourself, using only the cheapest products from Dollar Tree instead of the fancy WalMart brands, etc?  Remember that having 2,000 calories a day and so much clean water that you think nothing of peeing in it daily makes you unbelievably rich and wasteful in the eyes of a significant number of people.

Sure, I've been back to DC since Jamboree, but it'll never be quite the same as doing it at 13, with 3 friends I'd known since kindergarten and 32 more I'd only met a few weeks before during the preparation campouts.  My family wasn't rich by any means, and I suspect my grandparents got creative to come up with some of that.  Still, it was one of the most significant positive events of my childhood.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Irrelevant; just because I can depend on someone doesn't mean I particularly respect anything about them other than their reliability...

You claim my comment was irrelevant and then proceed to provide a non sequitur explanation?  OK.  Thanks.

[Guest MormonGator]

 @askandanswer is from Australia-they might have a different outlook and culture on homeschooling. 

Pitchforks down everyone. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by MormonGator