CRT - Why this guy is right and wrong


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Godless said:

I kept telling myself I was going to steer clear of these CRT threads, but then I saw this clip posted on Twitter in response to a congressman claiming that CRT goes against everything MLK stood for. If you don't grasp what CRT is, Dr. King does a great job of laying out the foundation of it here.

 

Since you have decided to engage with this thread and you seem to be the sort of person the OP was asking to hear from, would you mind explaining what your understanding of Critical Race Theory is? Do you think the examples in this thread are actually examples of CRT or are they actually something else? 

Additionally, do you think there are areas (either in the theory itself or in the application) where CRT goes too far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Godless said:

Was it broken family structure that massacred hundreds of black residents in a (notably prosperous) Tulsa neighborhood in 1921?

Was it broken family structure that killed five children and left over 200 black families homeless after a bomb was dropped in the middle of a Philadelphia neighborhood in 1985?

Was it broken family structure that deliberately left out black families when the New Deal started building up the suburbs?

I'm not saying that it's impossible for black Americans to prosper in this country, but it's important to acknowledge that they faced institutionally-enforced barriers to progress for decades after slavery ended. No other race has had to overcome the kind of hurdles that black Americans have. That's not to say that other races haven't had to overcome hardship and poverty, but they didn't have to fight a system that actively held them back after having them literally enslaved.

And I don't deny racial hardships that Blacks have experienced in this country.  I don't think anyone versed in history would argue otherwise.  But to say that these individual events are the root cause of why blacks fail en masse in America TODAY simply doesn't look at the facts of history.

Why do you think it is that so many black families succeed today? You look at the disproportionate black population in poverty stricken areas.  But have you seen just how many blacks succeed in America DESPITE these horrific events of history that you point to?  

The NUMBER ONE reason why they succeed is a strong family unit.  The NUMBER ONE reason they fail is a weak family unit. 

With the lone exception of some Hollywood types, EVERY demographic will clearly show that

  • Blacks with strong family units will succeed at rates similar to any other race with strong family units.
  • Blacks with weak family units will fail at rates similar to any other race with weak family units.

You want to help Black people in America?  Stop decrying racism as the culprit, and start requiring stronger families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And I don't deny racial hardships that Blacks have experienced in this country.  I don't think anyone versed in history would argue otherwise.  But to say that these individual events are the root cause of why blacks fail en masse in America TODAY simply doesn't look at the facts of history.

Why do you think it is that so many black families succeed today? You look at the disproportionate black population in poverty stricken areas.  But have you seen just how many blacks succeed in America DESPITE these horrific events of history that you point to?  

The NUMBER ONE reason why they succeed is a strong family unit.  The NUMBER ONE reason they fail is a weak family unit. 

With the lone exception of some Hollywood types, EVERY demographic will clearly show that

  • Blacks with strong family units will succeed at rates similar to any other race with strong family units.
  • Blacks with weak family units will fail at rates similar to any other race with weak family units.

You want to help Black people in America?  Stop decrying racism as the culprit, and start requiring stronger families.

I know its been mentioned before but a perfect example of this is Asian Americans.  They had racial hardships including being put in prison camps because they were seen as the enemy during World War 2.  Instead of constantly regurgitating the crimes inflicted on them because of the color of their skin, and blaming their circumstances on everyone else.. (Which they have had many and I am sure they can tell us about them)  They focused on bettering themselves and their families, and they as a group are hugely successful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a conversation with my neighbor about racism on Sunday. He's a black man from Haiti. He talked about racism (per my request) and his perception on the matter. It was really interesting. He did open my eyes a bit to the reality of racism. (I live in a bubble, after all, being in Utah.) But he was also, clearly, biased because of the experiences he'd had. Which was also interesting to me. He read racism into all of his negative experiences. Every experience he described I've dealt with. Crappy bosses abusing you. Difficulty with landlords. People calling you names or just randomly mistreating you. Etc., etc. He read race into all of those experiences. Whereas I'm sure that race was part of the equation, I'm not convinced he sees all his negative interactions through the right lens. People are abusive jerks everywhere and to every one. Don't get me wrong. Racism is clearly a real issue that still exists in today's world. (Half of his negative experiences were from the 1970s...and it's just not the same world anymore...but I digress...) But seeing everything through a racial lens really distorts things I think.

I'm not sure I have a point other than that the conversation was very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Since you have decided to engage with this thread and you seem to be the sort of person the OP was asking to hear from, would you mind explaining what your understanding of Critical Race Theory is? Do you think the examples in this thread are actually examples of CRT or are they actually something else? 

Additionally, do you think there are areas (either in the theory itself or in the application) where CRT goes too far?

@Godless Looks like I got my threads crossed. Feel free to reply in this one or in @Fether's. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Why do you think it is that so many black families succeed today? You look at the disproportionate black population in poverty stricken areas.  But have you seen just how many blacks succeed in America DESPITE these horrific events of history that you point to?  

The NUMBER ONE reason why they succeed is a strong family unit.  The NUMBER ONE reason they fail is a weak family unit. 

With the lone exception of some Hollywood types, EVERY demographic will clearly show that

  • Blacks with strong family units will succeed at rates similar to any other race with strong family units.
  • Blacks with weak family units will fail at rates similar to any other race with weak family units.

You want to help Black people in America?  Stop decrying racism as the culprit, and start requiring stronger families.

Amen, AMEN!

Nowhere is this more apparent, than in comparing new legal immigrants from Africa, to blacks already living in America.  Folks coming here from Kenya, for example tend to do almost as well as our Asian immigrant superstars we hear so much about.   And yes, they tend to bring their intact families with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2021 at 4:42 PM, Traveler said:

A little story and perhaps you have heard it before. 

Yes, it has been a part of primary curricula for as long as I know.

Perhaps you remember the following speech from Elder Packer:

Quote

When I was a boy, childhood diseases appeared regularly in every community. When someone had chicken pox or measles or mumps, the health officer would visit the home and place a quarantine sign on the porch or in the window to warn everyone to stay away. In a large family like ours, those diseases would visit by relay, one child getting it from another, so the sign might stay up for weeks.

We could not blockade ourselves inside our homes or stay hidden away to avoid those terrible contagions. We had to go to school, to employment, to church—to life!

Two of my sisters were stricken with very severe cases of measles. At first they seemed to recover. A few weeks later Mother glanced out of the window and saw Adele, the younger of the two, leaning against a swing. She was faint and weak with a fever. It was rheumatic fever! It came as a complication from measles. The other sister also had the fever.

There was little that could be done. In spite of all of the prayers of my parents, Adele died. She was eight years old.

While Nona, two years older, recovered, she had fragile health for most of her life.

When I was in the seventh grade, in a health class, the teacher read an article. A mother learned that the neighbor children had chicken pox. She faced the probability that her children would have it as well, perhaps one at a time. She determined to get it all over with at once.

So she sent her children to the neighbor’s to play with their children to let them be exposed, and then she would be done with it. Imagine her horror when the doctor finally came and announced that it was not chicken pox the children had; it was smallpox.

The best thing to do then and what we must do now is to avoid places where there is danger of physical or spiritual contagion.

Just as we allow ourselves to be exposed to various contagions as our immune systems can handle them, we also need to be aware of those diseases we're not equipped to handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, it has been a part of primary curricula for as long as I know.

Perhaps you remember the following speech from Elder Packer:

Just as we allow ourselves to be exposed to various contagions as our immune systems can handle them, we also need to be aware of those diseases we're not equipped to handle.

I think we are talking about two different things.  I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with lies and deceptions is with the truth.  President McKay expressed the thought that we cannot control the birds that fly over our heads but we can keep them from nesting in our heads.  It is one thing to seek out a contagion and a very different thing to think we can avoid a contagion by being ignorant of it (ignoring it).   I am not sure I understand your statement, "We also need to be aware of those diseases we're not equipped to handle."  For example, how does that apply to a disease like COVID-19 that is primarily passed by asymptomatic individuals?  In addition, are you of the opinion that there are no spiritual contagions passed by those that appear asymptomatic?  I am also a little confused with the concept of equipped to handle.  Do you mean that we should not ever face our Goliaths?

In this thread we are talking about critical race theory that is based in the concept of systematic racisms.   I think we ought to be involved and unafraid - more in honest discussions of truth than efforts to avoid any possible discussion.  For example, rather than oppose critical race theory and systematic racism - perhaps we should ask more questions like - "What organizations since and during the conflict of the Civil War has been more supportive of systematic racism (CRT) than the Democratic Party or more recently on the seen; than policies of Planned Parenthood?  And why that is not being taught in our public school?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think we are talking about two different things.  I am of the opinion that the best way to deal with lies and deceptions is with the truth.  President McKay expressed the thought that we cannot control the birds that fly over our heads but we can keep them from nesting in our heads.  It is one thing to seek out a contagion and a very different thing to think we can avoid a contagion by being ignorant of it (ignoring it).   I am not sure I understand your statement, "We also need to be aware of those diseases we're not equipped to handle."  For example, how does that apply to a disease like COVID-19 that is primarily passed by asymptomatic individuals?  In addition, are you of the opinion that there are no spiritual contagions passed by those that appear asymptomatic?  I am also a little confused with the concept of equipped to handle.  Do you mean that we should not ever face our Goliaths?

In this thread we are talking about critical race theory that is based in the concept of systematic racisms.   I think we ought to be involved and unafraid - more in honest discussions of truth than efforts to avoid any possible discussion.  For example, rather than oppose critical race theory and systematic racism - perhaps we should ask more questions like - "What organizations since and during the conflict of the Civil War has been more supportive of systematic racism (CRT) than the Democratic Party or more recently on the seen; than policies of Planned Parenthood?  And why that is not being taught in our public school?

 

The Traveler

If the schools wanted to stop teaching English at all and actively start teaching that people who believed in God were mentally ill and needed to be locked up, would you support it as "part of their agency" and believe that opposing it was of Satan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think we are talking about two different things. 

No, we're not talking about two different things.  You're just setting up a straw man.

  • I'm all for OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. 
  • I'm all for OPEN DISCUSSION of dissenting opinions.

I am NOT for some adult other than a child's parents having power and authority over a child threatening that child with expulsion and academic failure if he doesn't believe the ideologies that differ from the parents.

Extreme cases of abuse can be brought up, certainly.  But what we're talking about is not an extreme case or an exception.  We're talking about the standard business as usual.

Just to emphasize how much I'm all for open discussion of differing ideas:

My English teacher (Mr. Kopacki) whom I have praised so often on this forum, certainly didn't have a favorable opinion of Mormons.  But the fact was that any mention of religion in that classroom was not about a power play or failure or success in the class.  It was about having a discussion.  I was about our ability to express our opinions and explain things with logic.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.  IF YOU THINK I EVER SAID OR BELIEVED ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.

I have a problem when teachers are using schooling in math, science, English, foreign language, history, etc. as a forum to promote radical ideologies, and then threaten children with failing grades and social ostracizing (cancel culture) if they don't agree with such ideologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Grunt said:

If the schools wanted to stop teaching English at all and actively start teaching that people who believed in God were mentally ill and needed to be locked up, would you support it as "part of their agency" and believe that opposing it was of Satan?

I believe that control of school belongs to the state and communities within the state.  I do not believe the federal government has any role in public education.  So if a community wants to stop teaching English or mathematics - I believe that is their right.  If the federal government wants to mandate English and/or mathematics - I do not support it - they have no right.  The one exception is if the education system school violates individual rights - I believe communities have no such constitutional right to violate rights granted by the federal constitution.  

This is similar to the condition in the Book of Mormon concerning religious freedom.  The state cannot violate its own laws.  If someone want to follow a religion of lies that is their right and their G-d given agency.

What is taught in public schools is up to the local board of education.  These are elected positions at the local level.  If a community continues to elect individuals to the board of education that pursue strange or silly curriculum - that is the problem of that community.  It would not be the first time a community used their freedoms and liberties to make bad choices.  There are options that include peaceful protest and supporting more reliable candidates  for such positions in elections.  Individuals holding public office in a manner contrary to what they campaigned is not new.  But in the USA voters favor political professionals over "inexperienced" citizens - life is not kind to anyone that refuses to do due diligence.   The lazier  we raise our next generation to be - the more future generations will be governed and the less they will control their government. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

I have a problem when teachers are using schooling in math, science, English, foreign language, history, etc. as a forum to promote radical ideologies, and then threaten children with failing grades and social ostracizing (cancel culture) if they don't agree with such ideologies.

Can you give me any examples in history where teachers did not inject (to some degree) any of their personal values?  I strongly believe that if you can find such a system's control over teachers that such a system would be much worse the our currently flawed system.  I am more concerned over options available than I am that any particular option is flawed. 

I will admit that as a student - for most of my educational life - I loved to try to ask questions that would embarrass of frustrate my teachers.  The carried over into college - especially with professors that required specific text books - I loved to find flaws or contradictions in the text and ask why the professors wrote or supported such flaws?  If they protected such flaws - I sought out other professors. 

What is taught in other countries, states, communities or homes - I believe is the right or problem of such communities and homes.  If someone has a teacher for their child that problematic for them - then as long as there are legal options - let them follow such options of their choice.  If their country does not have such options then I believe that the 12th Article of Faith is the best course for the Saints of G-d.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe that control of school belongs to the state and communities within the state.  I do not believe the federal government has any role in public education.  So if a community wants to stop teaching English or mathematics - I believe that is their right.  If the federal government wants to mandate English and/or mathematics - I do not support it - they have no right.  The one exception is if the education system school violates individual rights - I believe communities have no such constitutional right to violate rights granted by the federal constitution.  

This is similar to the condition in the Book of Mormon concerning religious freedom.  The state cannot violate its own laws.  If someone want to follow a religion of lies that is their right and their G-d given agency.

What is taught in public schools is up to the local board of education.  These are elected positions at the local level.  If a community continues to elect individuals to the board of education that pursue strange or silly curriculum - that is the problem of that community.  It would not be the first time a community used their freedoms and liberties to make bad choices.  There are options that include peaceful protest and supporting more reliable candidates  for such positions in elections.  Individuals holding public office in a manner contrary to what they campaigned is not new.  But in the USA voters favor political professionals over "inexperienced" citizens - life is not kind to anyone that refuses to do due diligence.   The lazier  we raise our next generation to be - the more future generations will be governed and the less they will control their government. 

 

The Traveler

You have completely avoided answering the question, my friend. If homeschooling your child to protect him from lies during his formative years is Satan's Plan, then is it also Satan's Plan to pull your child out of public schools for teaching that God is fiction, sin is happiness, and religious people are mentally ill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I will admit that as a student - for most of my educational life - I loved to try to ask questions that would embarrass of frustrate my teachers.  The carried over into college - especially with professors that required specific text books - I loved to find flaws or contradictions in the text and ask why the professors wrote or supported such flaws?  If they protected such flaws - I sought out other professors. 

 

I do that too, out of natural curiosity. I also learned that people really hate questions, no matter how innocent they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

Can you give me any examples in history where teachers did not inject (to some degree) any of their personal values?

Deflect.  Straw man.  I never said they didn't.  In fact I said just the opposite.

If you want to actually have a conversation with ME, then have a conversation with ME, not a strawman of your own design.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Vort said:

You have completely avoided answering the question, my friend. If homeschooling your child to protect him from lies during his formative years is Satan's Plan, then is it also Satan's Plan to pull your child out of public schools for teaching that God is fiction, sin is happiness, and religious people are mentally ill?

I am attempting to be clear - As I understand; Satan's primary plan was to take away our agency.   G-d's plan was to grant us agency.  It appears to me that making a choice for others is Satan's plan.  Sometime I am not sure exactly how to know when we infringe on the agency of others.  If it is clear to you - I would appreciate the clarification.   I have my own view of things - but I wonder if in trying to put a point a cross or question something unclear to me becomes an affront to someone else's agency.   I am of the impression that if our children are "forced" to learn any subject - is it not the force that is contrary to agency?  How do we teach small children any principle (good or evil) without infringing on their agency?  I think the answer is - at least in part - in D&C 121.  As parents we are accountable before G-d for our mistakes in teaching our children.  Perhaps our greatest mistake is not so much a mistake as it is a willingness to consider what our mistakes may be?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Deflect.  Straw man.  I never said they didn't.  In fact I said just the opposite.

If you want to actually have a conversation with ME, then have a conversation with ME, not a strawman of your own design.

Perhaps you are correct - I am not trying so much to argue a point as I am attempting to understand how you have arrived at your conclusions.  Especially what you have considered and are willing to consider and most important of all - why?  My questions are pointed such that I can gain insight into your thinking process.  In this case - I struggle with principles of agency and am curious how others deal with things I have not completely resolved.   I wonder how to deal with others teaching children (especially my own - including grandchildren whose parents have gone astray) principles that are contrary to what I understand and believe.  Do my questions upset you?  If they do I apologize - it was not my intent.

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I understand; Satan's primary plan was to take away our agency.   G-d's plan was to grant us agency.  It appears to me that making a choice for others is Satan's plan.

This is incorrect. Agency is a gift from God and cannot be abrogated by any but one's own self. Satan indeed seeks to destroy the agency of man; this he does by encouraging sin. Sin destroys man's agency.

Adults make decisions for their children. That's one of the responsibilities of being an adult. I do not let my young children go to a crackhouse or a whorehouse. I do not let them watch NC-17 or R-rated movies. I do not tolerate filthy language. And I worry not for a single moment that, by so doing, I might be infringing on their agency. I am not. The attitude demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what agency is.

Who do you believe will stand condemned before God: The man who intentionally denies his children access to evils and perversions that are called "education" in order to protect their developing mind, heart, and soul, or the man who intentionally allows his children to experience filth and evil in order to protect their agency? As for myself, I will gladly take my chances by trying to be the former and trying never to be the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is incorrect. Agency is a gift from God and cannot be abrogated by any but one's own self. Satan indeed seeks to destroy the agency of man; this he does by encouraging sin. Sin destroys man's agency.

Adults make decisions for their children. That's one of the responsibilities of being an adult. I do not let my young children go to a crackhouse or a whorehouse. I do not let them watch NC-17 or R-rated movies. I do not tolerate filthy language. And I worry not for a single moment that, by so doing, I might be infringing on their agency. I am not. The attitude demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what agency is.

Who do you believe will stand condemned before God: The man who intentionally denies his children access to evils and perversions that are called "education" in order to protect their developing mind, heart, and soul, or the man who intentionally allows his children to experience filth and evil in order to protect their agency? As for myself, I will gladly take my chances by trying to be the former and trying never to be the latter.

I do not disagree.  But if you will I have a questions about your statement, "I do not tolerate filthy language"?  This has always been an issue for me - especially when I was young and in the army - I objected to filthy language.  You can imagine how that went.   But now that I am a grand parent how do I deal with filthy language with my grandchildren (some are young and unaccountable) when their parents approve of it?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Traveler

Please understand that I have a lot of respect for you.  But you often misread things so badly that I wonder if we're in the same conversation.  I'm doing the following because I know you're being sincere.  And I have enough respect for you that I'm willing to go through the extra effort to clarify my position to you.  I wouldn't be willing to go through this effort if it were anyone else.

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

My questions are pointed such that I can gain insight into your thinking process. 

That may be what you're attempting to do.  But it is actually about insight into the strawman you've constructed.  Consider the following conversation as a parallel.

Traveler: I enjoy biking.  It's my preferred method of exercise to preserve good health. But even I don't think we should be biking 8 hours a day.
Carb: Why don't you like exercise?  Haven't you been taught that exercise is important for you cardiovascular system?
T: Yes, I'm aware.  And I do it regularly.  But there's a limit to the quantity that one should be doing. And there is a question of the appropriate time and place.
C: I still don't get why you don't like exercising, and biking in particular.  I'd do it all the time, if I had the time for it.
T: Doing it too much will do more harm than good.  You need to ration it out to get the "proper" exercise.
C: I am still concerned about why you don't exercise at all.
T: I said I exercise.  I exercise more than most.  And I believe my life and quality of life has been extended because of it.  But you still shouldn't be exercising THAT much.
C: I'm sorry that you feel that way.  One day I hope you'll understand that you can have a more healthy life if you'd just exercise.

Take a moment to consider this and the parallels with the conversation we've been having.

Now: I'll repeat my position.

1) It is absolutely imperative that a child's up-bringing and education include exposure to new ideas -- especially ideas they may disagree with.  Understood?  Got it?  it is IMPERATIVE that this happen.
2) It is also imperative that education include the understanding of the difference between facts and opinions; the concept of "ideologies" and "propaganda" vs. "established truth."
3) There should be no punishment or bonus to agree or disagree with ideologies.
4) It is imperative that such discussions should NOT be about finding the truth of those positions.  It should be about how well we communicate our positions, and how well we can support, defend, or refute a position.
4) Teachers should be allowed enough academic freedom to speak ideologies (WITHIN THEIR DISCIPLINE) as long as there is no academic consequence when students disagree.
5) Teachers should be very careful in the format of how ideologies (especially controversial ones) are discussed in class.
6) Some ideologies are "toxic" which should be strictly avoided.  See below.

There are two points I'd like to make regarding these 6 points.

1) Teachers have our children 8 hours or more per day.  Parents are lucky if they get that much (aside from sleeping hours).  If teachers are constantly teaching them ideas that parents consider wrong, what chance do parents have of correcting any ideologies that they find incorrect?  I'm only asking for equal time.  If the only exposure students get is maybe an hour or two, and all the rest is plain old 2+2=4, then ok.  Parents should be able to work with this.  But if they are getting inundated with it all day long, there's no hope of parents really raising their kids.  The school is doing the raising.

2) We need to be aware of "Toxic" ideologies.  And I would welcome discussion of such only in a VERY controlled environment where people have metaphorical hazmat suits to handle it.

We use the word "Toxic" too often and it has lost meaning.  So, I need to define it clearly.

Toxic ideology: An ideology which poisons creativity, individual thinking, enthusiasm, self-esteem, optimism, autonomy, creativity, and clear communication/expression.

And I believe that CRT fits that bill.

  • It tells whites that all of society's ills are on their heads.
  • It tells minority races that "the man" is keeping them down.  And there is no hope to get out of their bad situation.
  • It tells everyone that it is based on race - something they have no control over and cannot change -- no hope.
  • Thus, I don't see a positive use for this ideology even if it were true.
  • Feminism also has some parallels in this vein.

Too often, these ideas are not taught as an ideology to be discussed, but they are taught as a matter of fact that the students need to accept or they will face academic and social consequences.

ONCE AGAIN: I have NO problem with having open discussion of ideas.  I have a problem with the format and the quantity.  And it will be a rare teacher and a rare classroom where toxic ideas are discussed in an open format with NO prejudice or NO academic / social consequences for disagreeing.  Yes, it happens.  Of course it does.  But it is RARE.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:
9 hours ago, Traveler said:

As I understand; Satan's primary plan was to take away our agency.   G-d's plan was to grant us agency.  It appears to me that making a choice for others is Satan's plan.

This is incorrect. Agency is a gift from God and cannot be abrogated by any but one's own self. Satan indeed seeks to destroy the agency of man; this he does by encouraging sin. Sin destroys man's agency.

Another thing people seem to get wrong on this matter (I haven't read through all the replies so I don't know what @Traveler is saying in this specific thing) is the following idea: They seem to imply that having a consequence for action equates to choosing for others. If you walk in on your children watching a bad movie and you ground them for a month, is that really in line with Satan's plan? Whose plan was it that we would stand accountable for the choices we make? God's or Satan's? And what is being grounded for a month for watching a bad movie if it's not standing accountable for one's choices?

To literally make a choice for another, one would have to like...I dunno...blind their kids so they couldn't watch a bad movie.

I had a debate once on Facebook (one of the few I've had there because Faceboook is awful) where a ward member was claiming that government restrictions was Satan's plan. Same sort of thinking...but it's seriously flawed. The government or a parent or anyone imposing consequence for action is much more in line with God's plan than Satan's. I actually agree with the guy about the evils of certain government restrictions -- I was simply pointing out to him that the reason could not be the argument he was making because that's not what agency was and/or is. God removed and removes all sorts of "freedoms" from us. I, for example, cannot fly like Superman. I cannot walk through solid objects. I cannot hold my breath for an hour. Etc. God imposed those restrictions on me. Not Satan. And God, not Satan, is the one who will hold me accountable for sin. Satan is the one who would not only "let" me engage in sin without consequence (a lie, of course, because he is the great liar...but he would claim there would be no consequence. And he wouldn't actually impose the consequence), but he would revel in my poor choices. God is the one who would sorrow in, impose consequences upon, and even inject chastisement by way of deterrent to correct my path.

When we chastise and impose consequence upon others for their choices it is in line with God's plan. The oft heard argument that doing so is Satan's plan is.......you know....in line with Satan's plan. :D

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

But if you will I have a questions about your statement, "I do not tolerate filthy language"?  This has always been an issue for me - especially when I was young and in the army - I objected to filthy language.  You can imagine how that went.   But now that I am a grand parent how do I deal with filthy language with my grandchildren (some are young and unaccountable) when their parents approve of it?

Oh, this one is easy.  (Easy to answer, perhaps much harder to implement.)  The answer is one of stewardship.  Vort is talking about a parent raising a child, and you are talking about a grandparent trying to have influence with grandkids, when the kids may not want it or not care. 

It is not in your stewardship to raise someone else's children.

I've lost count of the noble, righteous, good grandparents I know, who suffer terribly at this truth, sometimes to the extent of flat-out denying it is true.

The topic hearkens back to this thread: Requiring Private School. Or, let's get to the point, using money to control others

My answer there would apply here too:

Quote

The only "authority" that a parent has over the family of a grown, independent, self-sufficient child, is the authority willingly granted by that adult child.   If said child is, oh, I dunno, getting their bills paid by dad, or want dad to buy 'em a car or something, then there's a little more authority.

On one end of the scale, we have a righteous patriarch sitting lovingly over multiple generations of progeny.  Everyone is close, everyone seeks and values the dad's opinion, and family reunions are regular huge efforts that nourish and strengthen all 102 of them.

Somewhere near the other end of the scale, you have "grown" kids, living "on their own", maybe they have a means of income, maybe they don't.  Even though they have their own children, they basically are still dependent children themselves.  Grandpa pays the bills, and grandpa still pulls the strings.  If the kids don't like it, they can quit taking his money.

I suppose the far end of the scale, is where you find toxic dysfunction and unrighteous dominion.  Grandpa uses leverage like emotional manipulation, blackmail, threats of self-harm, or any of a hundred other nasty tactics to get his progeny to bend to his will.  And his progeny is usually not emotionally or financially mature enough to tell grandpa to get bent.

So basically, not knowing the family, we don't know from what position grandpa makes such a statement.  He might be a wise and loving patriarch, he might be an evil tyrannical overlord, or anywhere in between. 

 

@Traveler, I hope to some day be burdened with the plight of watching my kids not making the choices regarding my grandkids that I want them to make.  When that time comes, I expect to be able to come here and drill you for answers.  And you, who had participated in this thread and then went out and sorted through it all with your grandkids, will by then be an expert, and will have many useful tips for me.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share