No more games in Sacrament

[mgridle]

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you @Vort

Sounds like we agree on the ending state.  But that heated exchange you perfectly described (that began after XYZ was demanded) is i guess what i was alluding to.  

I guarantee you it's not a heated exchange.  It's a heated one-sided exchange; but there is absolutely 0 reason for the parent to engage in and feed the petulant child's response.  That's part of the problem-for the undisciplined unruly child the parent makes the decision to become embroiled in the child's drama, and become emotionally invested what the child does. It takes two to tango.

For the disciplined child, the parent doesn't care about the child's feelings.  The parent may be stern, may be firm, may give the child "the look", but done properly the parent is in no way, shape or form emotional invested in the child's drama. 

I guarantee you (if done right), after this little display of petulance, Vort could easily stand up and give a solid testimony, or laugh with a friend, or teach a class.

Just look at his response " Okay, you're allowed to hate me. But you're not allowed to say it.", that is a very calm, reasonable, rational, non-emotional response.  It tells the child-look you can get all emotionally invested in this act, but I'm not going to be, period.

As a parent, I really don't care about my child's feelings; I care about training them right and teaching them how to properly behave in the world.  What I care about is that they figure out how to properly regulate and control their feelings, which is a big difference. And that proper regulation involves not being involved in their drama.

[mgridle]

35 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I remember going to the store on a single speed bicycle for a few things we needed when I was about 13, (and likely would have been sent long before that, but up to that point we were living 6 miles out of town on a hilly road) but sending a kid these days would probably get the parents investigated for neglect.

Yeap, it's called the infantilization of society.  Statistically speaking, crime today is lower than it has been for 30 something years, statistically speaking there are no more percentage-wise children who are abducted, sexually abused, kidnapped, etc. than happened in the 1950s.  What has changed is the perception of danger.

There are plenty of dangers that are more real today than when I was growing up, but being kidnapped, abused, etc. is not one of them.

Take for example sexual abuse of children.  Sexual abuse happens b/c the predators instinctively know the child doesn't have anyone to turn to, and that no one would believe them.  It's not that the child doesn't have people they could tell-just that the child doesn't have anyone safe who they could tell. The parent is probably invested in their own emotional drama so much so that the predator instinctively knows that there is no way the child would tell the parent.

It's why having a parent in the Bishop's office for interview is absolutely stupid and will actually do nothing to actually solve the problem.  Really, if you've got a solid parent-child relationship, the very second the predator tries something squirrelly one of two things is going to happen-either the child immediately tells the parent or the parent is going to have their radar so highly attuned that they will notice immediately something is wrong.

Sexual predator grooming isn't so much about the child, it's about the child and the relationships the child has-they are very smart sons of blank-blank. They scan the relationships, pick out a vulnerable kid and then work that kid-the kid is vulnerable in the first place b/c the proper relationships with a trusted adult isn't in place. It's why I don't worry one whit about sexual predators, b/c one I ensure I have a proper teaching to my children (i.e. no one should do xyz to you-if they do come tell me, if they make you feel uncomfortable at all, come tell me)-i.e. I expect you to be responsible enough to come talk to me when there is a problem and here is how you recognize a problem.  When you recognize a problem, come talk to me. And two-I have a scan radar up where if any adult does something funny-I remove my kids.

Anyone who claims, well I didn't know there was nothing I could do, somebody else should have protected my child, my child was just helpless . . .yeap exactly right and that's why your child was abused and mine is not. 

Seriously, what kind of a mucked-up message to you send a child when you must be present for an interview with the Bishop.  The message you immediately send (which they will remember for their entire life), is authority figures are not to be trusted, the Bishop is not to be trusted, you can't trust other people.  Which is a totally false message-you can trust other people, Bishops, authority figures, etc. the key is to understand the signs of an individual who can't be trusted.  If you teach a child that the Bishop cannot be trusted-you are opening them up for a world of pain in life.  B/c they will be scared little indoor cats their entire life, instead of recognizing the signs of who can be trusted and who can't be trusted.

People who say, well who would have know, nope that's just a cop-out, it's an excuse for not being aware, you can detect predators if you get close enough to them, sure from a distant you wouldn't know, but if you get close enough, I guarantee you will be able to detect who is a predator and who is not.

[Guest MormonGator]

19 hours ago, seashmore said:

Yes, buuuuuuuttttt.....it eats up your data like Pac Man eats dots.  Fiscally minded adults (and their children with mobile devices) often use wifi because it allows them to keep data available for when there is no wifi available.  So people will be frustrated when they go to use their devices in a way that they probably shouldn't be in a chapel, anyway. 

Bonus: wifi sucks your battery life so less charging will be needed at church.

All great points @seashmore. 

[JayKi]

On 5/3/2018 at 7:50 PM, Vort said:

I honestly don't understand. If you have raised your children with any amount of discipline, what teenager would not hand over "his" (read: your) phone when instructed?

And if they said "no", the conversation would lead to steadily worse consequences for them.

Parent: Give me your phone.
Teen: No.
Parent: I'm not asking. Give me your phone now.
Teen: No.
Parent: If you want to act like an obstinate six-year-old, you will be treated like one. You are grounded. You may not leave the house except for school. Your phone will be cut off, and you will not get it back.
Teen: That's not fair!
Parent: That is how we have to treat our recalcitrant six-year-olds. They can't make mature decisions for themselves, so we do it for them.
Teen: I hate you!
Parent: Okay, you're allowed to hate me. But you're not allowed to say it. Now your grounding is extended for the rest of the month.
Teen: That's not fair!
Parent: Seriously, you need to stop right now. You don't want this to go on any longer.
Teen: You suck!
Parent: Now you are confined to your bedroom. Go.
Teen: You can't make me!
Parent (who can make him): Do you really want to test that theory?
Parent (who can't make him): I do not want to get outside authority like the police involved. That would be terrible and might tear our family apart. But I will, if you refuse to obey me.
<etc.>

I understand that there are some hardheaded, obstinate teens who defy their parents to their face. Why their parents put up with it, I can't imagine. If you love the child, you will do what is in his best interest, even if that means he leaves. Some people refuse to learn except by nasty, heartbreaking personal experience. So be it. Better they learn by sad experience than that they don't learn at all.

I was terrible teenager, I became man of my house when I was 10 and no one have authority over me. If my mother try this she couldn't ground me. Is hard for some parent to exert authority on teenager.  

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, JayKi said:

I was terrible teenager, I became man of my house when I was 10 and no one have authority over me. If my mother try this she couldn't ground me. Is hard for some parent to exert authority on teenager.  

"You are grounded. If you do not accept my authority and abide by my rules, you are not allowed to live in this house. Good luck finding other accommodations. If you like, I'll help you find another place, because I love you. But you will not live here if you don't obey me."

999 out of 1000 ten-year-olds would capitulate to this. The 0.1% that wouldn't probably need to be living somewhere else, anyway. But be forewarned: Any parent who plays this trump card absolutely must be willing to follow through. Nothing destroys parental authority like empty threats.

[JayKi]

Just now, Vort said:

"You are grounded. If you do not accept my authority and abide by my rules, you are not allowed to live in this house. Good luck finding other accommodations. If you like, I'll help you find another place, because I love you. But you will not live here if you don't obey me."

999 out of 1000 ten-year-olds would capitulate to this. The 0.1% that wouldn't probably need to be living somewhere else, anyway. But be forewarned: Any parent who plays this trump card absolutely must be willing to follow through. Nothing destroys parental authority like empty threats.

Is illegal in Uk and Costa Rica to make under 16 year old move out. My mother she never threaten me, is not nice to threaten child. If my mom told me I can not live with at home when I was teenager I will be happy to move out.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

 If you do not accept my authority and abide by my rules, you are not allowed to live in this house.

I think 99.9999% of us have heard our parents say this before. I know I have.  Human nature is pretty much the same no matter where you go! 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think 99.9999% of us have heard our parents say this before. I know I have.  Human nature is pretty much the same no matter where you go! 

And then we know, and either abide by the rules or move out.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

And then we know, and either abide by the rules or move out.

Or find more creative ways to break the rule and not get caught. 

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, JayKi said:

Is illegal in Uk and Costa Rica to make under 16 year old move out.

Obviously. That's true in every country I know of: You can't abandon a minor child. And it's irrelevant. If a child refuses to accept your authority and abide by your instructions, he needs to find other accommodations.

17 minutes ago, JayKi said:

My mother she never threaten me, is not nice to threaten child.

You know what's even more not nice? Allowing a ten-year-old to call the shots. Ten-year-olds should be protected while they learn (through obedience) to act like adults. They should not be allowed to be in charge. If they are incorrigible, they need to see the consequences of their bullheadedness.

18 minutes ago, JayKi said:

If my mom told me I can not live with at home when I was teenager I will be happy to move out.

As it should be.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Or find more creative ways to break the rule and not get caught. 

True enough. But in that case, you're cheating, not openly defying the rules. And oddly enough, it gives the parent an out if he's inclined to take it: He can turn a blind eye to the cheating and pretend not to know about it, thus keeping his child at home. I'm not saying that's a wise course of action, but it underscores the point that open defiance must never be rewarded.

[JayKi]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

You know what's even more not nice? Allowing a ten-year-old to call the shots. Ten-year-olds should be protected while they learn (through obedience) to act like adults. They should not be allowed to be in charge. If they are incorrigible, they need to see the consequences of their bullheadedness.

 

I enjoy it when I was young. I don't understand why you take a teenager phone away ?

[seashmore]

53 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nothing destroys parental authority like empty threats.

Amen! 

I was a relatively good kid, legally speaking.  The first (and only) time I remember being grounded was when I was about 12.  I had been fighting with my sister in the van, and my mom grounded both of us.  Later that night, she not only rescinded the grounding, but dropped us off at the county fair so she could go hang out with my aunt, where we would walk when the fair closed at 10:00 pm. 

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

True enough. But in that case, you're cheating, not openly defying the rules. And oddly enough, it gives the parent an out if he's inclined to take it: He can turn a blind eye to the cheating and pretend not to know about it, thus keeping his child at home. I'm not saying that's a wise course of action, but it underscores the point that open defiance must never be rewarded.

A cautionary tale from the life of seashmore: as I said previously, I was no delinquent.  However, I was a latch key kid as early as 9.  Our mom would let my sister and I be home after school by ourselves for about an hour.  If we were getting along and the house wasn't trashed when she got home, we got fifty cents an hour.  The next year, we were allowed to stay home without a babysitter for up to two hours (if she worked later than that, we would have a babysitter) under the same conditions.  By the time I was 12 and in jr high, we were unsupervised as late as 11:00 (that was the latest she would be at work, and we had better at least pretend to be asleep when she got home).  I was a homebody, but then again, so were the neighbor boys.  They weren't supposed to be in the house when parents weren't home, but they were.  We played spin the bottle kinds of games.  As an adult, my mom said, "I knew the things you guys did when I wasn't home," and I had a bit of an existential crisis.  Either she was lying to me about knowing, or she really had known and done nothing about it.  If I had kids and I knew them to be doing the kinds of things I was doing, there would have been consequences.  Discussions at the very least.
My point is: don't tell your kids you know what they are up to unless you are 100% sure you know what they are up to.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JayKi said:

I enjoy it when I was young.

Yes, young children also enjoy eating nothing but candy and playing video games all day. As adults, we don't allow this because it is not good for them, even if they enjoy it.

1 hour ago, JayKi said:

I don't understand why you take a teenager phone away ?

Because the teenager is misusing the phone, e.g. surfing the internet or playing games during sacrament meeting. Reread this thread if you have other questions about this.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

"You are grounded. If you do not accept my authority and abide by my rules, you are not allowed to live in this house. Good luck finding other accommodations. If you like, I'll help you find another place, because I love you. But you will not live here if you don't obey me."

999 out of 1000 ten-year-olds would capitulate to this. The 0.1% that wouldn't probably need to be living somewhere else, anyway. But be forewarned: Any parent who plays this trump card absolutely must be willing to follow through. Nothing destroys parental authority like empty threats.

I actually did kick out two of my sons for outright, blatant rebellion.  They knew I don't bluff.  Once outside the house, they begged my forgiveness, promised to never question my authority again, and asked for the privilege of living in my home again.  It helped that each of them chose winter in Colorado to behave this way.

I haven't had any similar problems since then.  

[JayKi]

52 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, young children also enjoy eating nothing but candy and playing video games all day. As adults, we don't allow this because it is not good for them, even if they enjoy it.

Because the teenager is misusing the phone, e.g. surfing the internet or playing games during sacrament meeting. Reread this thread if you have other questions about this.

I know already but is their choice if they want join in with meeting fully or use their phone. When I was teenager my mother was amazed even I show up to church, I go on my phone she won't care, is my choice if I listen or play game. 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, JayKi said:

I know already but is their choice if they want join in with meeting fully or use their phone.

Yes. It is also their choice whether they stand up in the middle of the meeting and start screaming and jumping over the pews.

It's really simple. Some things are not acceptable. Playing video games on your phone during sacrament meeting is one of those unacceptable things. If teens are so painfully immature that they would play phone games during sacrament meeting, they should not have phones. Duh.

[JayKi]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's really simple. Some things are not acceptable. Playing video games on your phone during sacrament meeting is one of those unacceptable things. If teens are so painfully immature that they would play phone games during sacrament meeting, they should not have phones. Duh.

maybe my mother just happy I was there, so she choose her battle different. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JayKi said:

maybe my mother just happy I was there, so she choose her battle different. 

Maybe you should not assume that every discussion on this list is about you.

[JayKi]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Maybe you should not assume that every discussion on this list is about you.

Jajajajaja you should let teenager choose if they listen or not, they will be one miss out. 

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, JayKi said:

Jajajajaja you should let teenager choose if they listen or not, they will be one miss out. 

Absolutely not.  It's my responsibility to teach my children.  They are children.  Most choices they aren't allowed to make.  I

[JayKi]

33 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Absolutely not.  It's my responsibility to teach my children.  They are children.  Most choices they aren't allowed to make.  I

I think teach when children and once they are teenager they know right and wrong thing to do. Once teenager is okay to make choice to listen or play on phone, they know they miss out already. 

[Grunt]

16 minutes ago, JayKi said:

I think teach when children and once they are teenager they know right and wrong thing to do. Once teenager is okay to make choice to listen or play on phone, they know they miss out already. 

You think incorrectly.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JayKi said:

Jajajajaja you should let teenager choose if they listen or not, they will be one miss out. 

I cannot avoid letting the teenager choose if he listens or not. That is not the question. The question is whether I allow the teenager to use my phone inappropriately. The answer is no.

[JayKi]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I cannot avoid letting the teenager choose if he listens or not. That is not the question. The question is whether I allow the teenager to use my phone inappropriately. The answer is no.

If is your phone then I agree, but at some age is important people realise even if no immediate consequence is still bad. If a teenager always get immediate punishment or repercussion they never learn if they do bad thing and don't get punishment what they do is still bad. Like to listen in sacrament only because of avoid punishment doesn't teach the importance to listen, just to do it to avoid punishment or repercussion. Is has to come from the person.