Children's Quad...

[_Roger Morrison]

I didn't know there was such a thing!!? Until one was given to a four year old for their birthday. How early does indoctrination begin in LDSism?

I seem to recall reading official denial of such practice. That children/youth are not intimidated or manipulated to serve Missions... Giving "The Scriptures" to a four year old to carry to church, "just like Mommy & Daddy" can hardly be seen as a non-attempt to condition behavior... Such a cutesie is little less than a sicko... IMSCO!
Roger
*
*

[_Yoda]

I guess I'm a little puzzled at your outrage on this one, Roger. What's wrong with a children's Bible or Book of Mormon? Most religions have children's scriptures. You can pick them up in any bookstore.

Actually, if it's a children's quad, I wouldn't mind picking one up for my son. He's 5. Where did they get it? Deseret Book?

[_John Larsen]

I guess I'm a little puzzled at your outrage on this one, Roger. What's wrong with a children's Bible or Book of Mormon? Most religions have children's scriptures. You can pick them up in any bookstore.

Actually, if it's a children's quad, I wouldn't mind picking one up for my son. He's 5. Where did they get it? Deseret Book?

I would like a copy too. I did a search at DB and the only thing I could find was a children's scripture tote. Is that what you are talking about?

[_Roger Morrison]

I guess I'm a little puzzled at your outrage on this one, Roger. What's wrong with a children's Bible or Book of Mormon? Most religions have children's scriptures. You can pick them up in any bookstore.

Actually, if it's a children's quad, I wouldn't mind picking one up for my son. He's 5. Where did they get it? Deseret Book?

I don't think "outrage" describes my feelings about this? Maybe disappointment? Wonderment?

Actually, I have somewhat the same feelings about other books of Children's Bible/Book of Mormon Stories. It is hard for me to really articulate my feelings, to my own satisfaction, so I certainly understand why you/others might be "...a little puzzled..."

I have always been somewhat discomforted by their illustrations that seem less than real and the stories that were/are more imagined than true, which they are presented as being...

Presently, convinced as I am of the falsness of biblical-reality, LDS and otherwise, I could quickly endorse a petition to have disclaimers displayed prominently on Religious books professing the-word-of-God to be true...

Maybe it could be related to my own quirkiness, but Bible-toters have always turned me off. Could be something heard as a child?? But Mormon Quad-toters never did turn me on. Especially those with special carrying cases. I don'know, just seem too pretentious .... And it does seem to be part of a monkey-see-monkey-do image that is not the most positive...

Liz, I expect my rejoinder has not endeared myself to you but I would discourage your aquisition of a Kid's Quad for your son. Imagine him carrying it on the street in view of his non-Mo-buddies? Not cool!
Roger
*
*

[_harmony]

It's a book used by people to strengthen their faith. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. We gave each of our children their own set of scriptures when they were small.

Do you object to all children's books that teach life's lessons? Aesop's Fables is forbidden? Mother Goose is banned?

[_Morrissey]

It's a book used by people to strengthen their faith. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. We gave each of our children their own set of scriptures when they were small.

Do you object to all children's books that teach life's lessons? Aesop's Fables is forbidden? Mother Goose is banned?

I believe parents have the right to pass their beliefs and values onto their children--only I would add that they then need to step out of the way when the child reaches adulthood and allow the children to follow their own path.

Harmony, at least in the case of Aesop's Fables and Mother Goose, they are acknowledged as fables/fiction, unlike the Standard Works, which are fables/fiction that children are indoctrinated to believe are factual, with significant implications. So while I get your point, and largely agree, the analogy only goes so far.

[_Jersey Girl]

Liz, I expect my rejoinder has not endeared myself to you but I would discourage your aquisition of a Kid's Quad for your son. Imagine him carrying it on the street in view of his non-Mo-buddies? Not cool!
Roger

I'm stunned by this remark to Liz and your objection to a children's Quad, Roger.

In response to the above, you seem to think that young LDS are the only children who carry their religious texts "on the street". In that, you are decidedly wrong. When is the last time you went to church? Children in every demonimation have religious texts available to them. Forget Deseret Books, go into any Family Christian Bookstore and you'll see Bibles, story books, song books and DVD's produced for children.

Why do the book covers/totes turn you off? Do you think there is something weird or pretentious about preserving one's religious texts? Do you cover your checkbook? Do you cover your money in a wallet? Do you cover your glasses?

I honestly don't understand your objection, Roger.

How early should indoctrination take place?

How early are children taught manners?
How early are children taught about their bodies?
How early are children taught about the world and how it works?
How early are children taught about relationships and how people "work"?

All of the above are transmitted to children via their parents, other people, teachers and in literature. There are pieces of children's literature that support the development of concepts for all of the topics that I listed above. Do you think that a families religious traditions should be off limits insofar as early education is concerned?

You complained because the Quad for the 4 year old contains pictures of things you disbelieve. Developmentally appropriate literature for a young child, age four, contains pictures attached to text in order to help children gain meaning through both types of symbolism, text/illustrations.

Children are largely "indoctrinated" to the world beginning at birth. Why do you question that a family shouldn't introduce it's personally held beliefs, religious traditions and values to it's children?

I have to be blunt here, Roger, and say that it seems to me that you would prefer that in a religious family, that the child simply tag a long to services and classes as if they had no mind, had no role and shouldn't be permitted to feel that they are a respected part of it.

[_bcspace]

I seem to recall reading official denial of such practice. That children/youth are not intimidated or manipulated to serve Missions... Giving "The Scriptures" to a four year old to carry to church, "just like Mommy & Daddy" can hardly be seen as a non-attempt to condition behavior... Such a cutesie is little less than a sicko... IMSCO!

By your logic, all parents indoctrinate their children and condition their behavior.

[_Jersey Girl]

I understand that people are concerned about "indoctrination" of children. The more I thought about this topic, the more compelled I felt to speak on behalf of LDS mothers. Without question, I do not share their religious views. However, when a topic like this focuses on LDS children, especially very young children, I think you are taking an unfair and unwarranted stab at their mothers and I, at least, can't let it stand without challenge.

In the OP, Roger stated that LDS children are carrying their children's Quad to be "just like" Mommy and Daddy.

What possible objection could anyone have when a child is being raised up to be "just like" Mommy and Daddy? The whole point of raising children with intentionality, is to (hopefully) grow children into adults who value themselves, value others and in this case, value their religious traditions. That is not to say that atheists lack conscience in child rearing, so don't try to go there.

Parents, especially mothers, invest a large part of themselves in teaching their children from an early age, how to behave appropriately, what is and what is not socially acceptable in various situations. They teach them to integrate into society by teaching them what some might think of as incidental things such as eating with utensils, wearing clothing in public, what types of clothing to wear in certain situations (blue jeans in the back yard, a dress to a formal occasion), toileting in the bathroom instead of the back yard (boys excluded because I just know what boys do!), when to speak and when to listen, how to conduct oneself in various social settings and they teach their children by example.

What is so strange or objectionable about a religious family teaching their young child to be "just like" Mom and Dad by carrying scriptures to church where scriptures are read, referred to and used as a reference for teaching?

I don't understand the objection. I think it takes an unwarranted poke at parents who are teaching their children a whole myriad of concepts and especially their mothers who work hard to raise up children with the utmost of concern for their general well being and in this case, their spiritual well being.

[_Jersey Girl]

I seem to recall reading official denial of such practice. That children/youth are not intimidated or manipulated to serve Missions... Giving "The Scriptures" to a four year old to carry to church, "just like Mommy & Daddy" can hardly be seen as a non-attempt to condition behavior... Such a cutesie is little less than a sicko... IMSCO!

By your logic, all parents indoctrinate their children and condition their behavior.

Yes, they do and people need to stop attaching a stigma to the word "indoctrination" as if it were something wrong to do.

I have to be honest and say that the OP pisses me off.