0 likes

The good people I have known, I don’t see a pattern in why they ended up good people, I don’t see a formula. The most I can come up with is something in their parents, some kind of work ethic or a fragment of their personal morality or behavior that was just enough to send their children off in the right direction. And it’s something that I don’t think Mormonism really teaches well (or at least, it gets lost in all the Mormon minutia and effluvia).

I agree with this point.

I’ve been thinking about the comments of t.n. trap, Aerin, and Wayne, and I’m still trying to decide what — if anything — I should do to be sure my kids are getting an education in ethics.

As it is, we spend a lot of time talking with our kids, and they tell us about their ideas and interests. And we discuss different issues that come up. For the moment it’s mostly behavioral issues (ask politely, don’t hurt your brother, share), but that may change.

   0 likes

Keep in mind, though, that Oaks had another political reason for painting homophobia as the religious position and acceptance of homosexuals as the godless position. I think Craig summed it up well here:

Because of the constitutional issue of separation of church and state, the state cannot favour one religion over another. Even if we were to allow it to favour religion over non-religion (which we don’t allow, or are trying not to at least), it still could not constitutionally or legally allow conservative religions to overrule liberal religions on this or any other issue.

   0 likes

Dallin Oaks in his recent talk at BYU-Idaho basically had to paint all “acting” homosexuals as atheists in order for his argument about freedom of religious speech in the public sphere to be poignant. If he were interested in the public sphere as it is, then he would have mentioned pro-gay spiritual positions. He avoided a battle of the supernaturals because, nowadays, it only makes transparent the hand of man (back during the Crusades, it made God hypervisible). It’s much easier to paint one’s opponents as godless, because then the battlefield is clear. A spiritually humble person wouldn’t do this, though. They’d help open others’ eyes to the multiple possibilities of being “good” in this world. I’m not saying Oaks isn’t humble, but I’m just saying his organized faith tradition limits his humility.

   0 likes

Open communication obviously does not belong to the religious. I do think, though, that religion can function to give an alternate understanding to social expectations. Also, in a family setting where open communication is the norm religion functions as another conversation starter.

   0 likes

I think children should be given the tools to make their own mistakes (age appropriate) and to learn from them. Time to learn about and contemplate other people’s experiences is also helpful (not everyone has a home, food on a regular basis, access to transportation, etc.).

My only caution about having church be the *only* place in the family where these things are discussed is that sometimes things are taught in church that parents disagree with. I found this with my own parents as I was becoming disaffected.

I would say to my parents, well, I thought you believed “x,y,z” because that’s what I had learned in primary/Sunday school. Maybe it was polygamy – maybe it was dating mormons only – I don’t recall. My parents were shocked and surprised and didn’t understand why I hadn’t asked them about that.

Well, I had no idea that they would disagree with those topics or perspectives. So why would I have asked them?

My husband and I discussed lying the other day with our four year olds. In a movie we had watched, the main character lies to her father.

It wasn’t an extensive conversation – but I don’t want for them to reach the age of 16 and not know how my husband and I feel about things like lying to one’s parents. So I think it’s absolutely important (if you attend a religious institution or not) to have lots of conversations with your children (or others) about morality – figuring out what morals are acceptable or not.

   0 likes

Because no active Mormons have fallen into empty consumerism? Or do regular church-goers participate in a more fulfilling, non-empty consumerism?

I think the fear of how your kids will learn how to be good people without weekly church is exactly that, a fear. I have that worry, too (I don’t think it is a rational fear), but I also worry about some of what my kids are learning because they are going to church (similar to what chanson mentions above). I’m just lazy enough to let the formal time they get at church be enough. If we weren’t going to church, I’d come up with something else.

I’m a fan of practical teaching in this area, anyway; spending time with my kids, getting involved in their lives and teaching them along the way.

The good people I have known, I don’t see a pattern in why they ended up good people, I don’t see a formula. The most I can come up with is something in their parents, some kind of work ethic or a fragment of their personal morality or behavior that was just enough to send their children off in the right direction. And it’s something that I don’t think Mormonism really teaches well (or at least, it gets lost in all the Mormon minutia and effluvia).

   0 likes

Jonathan — I updated the css, but it seems not quite right. When I get a minute, I’ll try to figure out how to fix it…

   0 likes

   0 likes

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/best-from-the-past-24-hours/article1215867/

From the caption:

Two protesters are asked to leave the Main Street Plaza in Salt Lake City, Utah, by Mormon Church security during a protest over the detention and handcuffing of two gay men for holding hands and one kissing the other on the cheek last week.

I was pleased to see that chanson chose to run with the masthead. The subtitle is very hard to read. Hope everyone is enjoying their weekend.

   0 likes