Children's Quad...

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl stated:
You are once again, resorting to extreme examples, JAK. Over the years, I have pointed out time and time again, that there is no insurance against mental illness in this life and religion is not the main cause of psychosis. I have posted repeatedly, the excerpts of the biographies of some of the worlds most extreme leaders and in nearly every single case, there existed a history of early abuse. post reference

Well, it’s a judgment to claim “resorting to extreme examples.”

“Mental illness” was not directly raised by Roger nor did I address it. You raise it first here. My address was not to “mentall illness” or to “psychosis.” It’s not relevant to my previous comments regarding “indoctrination.”

Jersey Girl stated:
An time and time again, you have ignored that connection. In 10+ years, when referring to extreme leaders, I haven't once seen you acknowledge that connection. You ignore it as if it didn't exist.

While this is non-topical to my comments in this thread, a case can well be made that “leaders” (those in position of power) have had “mental illness” by standards which we would apply today. Indoctrination was the issue which Roger raised and to which he objected with regard to religion. He appeared to be speaking to that issue in present time. Neither Roger nor I was addressing “history of early abuse.”

Jersey Girl stated:
You write as if religious families live in a vacuum and travel to and from church in pneumatic tubes as if they were a bank deposit. You write as if children raised in religious homes do not attend school, do not interact with other children and adults outside of their reilgious congregation, that adults do not go to work, pursue higher education and do not live as integrated parts of society.

Your words here do not reflect what I stated or what I meant. Please revisit my posts in this thread. The phrase “live in a vacuum” is your phrase. The expression of “live in a vacuum and travel to and from church in pneumatic tubes” is your phrase.

It is not my view nor did I express such a view in posts related to Roger’s issue or concern regarding “indoctrination.”

Roger asked:
“Until one was given to a four year old for their birthday. How early does indoctrination begin in LDSism?”

Religious indoctrination begins very early in childhood for virtually all world religions. Roman Catholics and many Protestant denominations practice infant baptism. They also practice religious indoctrination from early childhood with prayers and stories which reflect the doctrine of their various religious persuasions. Indoctrination is the point of address, not something else.

Roger also stated:
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!

This was his perspective. While I did not echo it as he articulated the view, I addressed the issue of “indoctrination” and “how early” it begins. In addition, I illustrated the dangers inherent in religious indoctrination. The intention of indoctrination is to short-circuit genuine thinking and transparent analysis. That’s why it’s inherently dangerous. It tends to make people intolerant of others with different beliefs.

“Tends” is a key word in analysis. While it may not always result in intolerance, indoctrination tends to discourage open, critical analysis of the pronouncements of doctrine. Hence, “indoctrination” in the context of Roger’s post is the point which I addressed.

JAK

[_JAK]

Roger stated:
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... post reference

It is the nature of “religious education” which is really indoctrination to exaggerate, minimize, and imagine. It’s a requirement to preclude access to more objective information. Those who accept without question religious dogma are likely not “discomforted” by the “illustrations.”

Religious groups have writers of stories and illustrations who are skilled in marketing. With regard to children’s religious stories, crafters of the stories are doing what the doctrine-makers of any given religion want them to do.

Roger stated:
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...

Too much information/education is an ever-present threat to doctrine. Each religious group has the challenge to sell its views as superior to other views. It’s a primary function of indoctrination.

Today, there are many translations of the Bible. The wording is altered, tweaked, and manipulated to produce the desired result and resulting interpretation. Prior to the printing press (and sometime after), all written language was copied by hand. To conclude there were no errors in that process over centuries is to conclude the extraordinary. We observe errors even with today’s exact words printed. Stories (news stories) often need to be revised as a result of error.

With regard to the Bible, the many denominations, sects, and cults which regard themselves as Christian do not agree on the meaning of the words even when reading the same version of the biblical script.

Roger stated:
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...

It’s not “quirkiness,” Roger. Simply stated, you know too much to be persuaded by any of the “Bible-toters.” You understand the inherent contradictions and contradictory interpretations made by those who claim to speak for the Bible or who claim to speak for God.

While it might be something you “heard as a child,” it’s more likely what you have learned as you have been exposed to a larger perspective than any of the “Bible-toters” (as you observed).

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks to all who have participated in/on this thread... Today being Father's Day, I have been Feted no end with undeserved accolades by my Children and Grandchildren. This has taken time from MDB that I will attempt to make up for tomorrow.

However, JAK does have proper hold of my perspective and sentiment... More tomorrow...
Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

Thanks to all who have participated in/on this thread... Today being Father's Day, I have been Feted no end with undeserved accolades by my Children and Grandchildren. This has taken time from MDB that I will attempt to make up for tomorrow.

However, JAK does have proper hold of my perspective and sentiment... More tomorrow...
Roger
*
*

Happy Father’s Day, Roger!

Because of various conflicts, our family (son, daughter-in-law, and two little grand-kids) will be at our house here July 4th weekend.

JAK

[_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 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?

John, it might well be? I was misinformed, or misunderstood I enquired re where the Kiddy Quad was purchased, and was told, "...it hasn't been yet, but Daddy is getting one. I'll tell you when he does..."?????

When I know, you will know. Is an apology--from me--in order for the emotions arroused by my reaction to a non-event?? Whatever, it did opportune occasion to express some interesting opinions ;-)
Roger
*
*

[_Roger Morrison]

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?

No. Of course not. Your examples are knowingly sold, and purchased, as entertaining fiction. Other childrens' books of non-fiction--biographies, history, etc as well as entertaining are published to inform of factual events and persons...

OTOH, "...books used...to strengthen (religious) faith..." are meant to influence and persuaid belief in mythology and legend of the past, as if was/is factual and true. In many cases, especially in LDSism, it is disbelieved at risk of (eternal) death! As you well know!?

I think many of us as parents said gave, did and ommitted things to/with/from our children that was/were--in the end--not in their best interest???? At least, I speak for myself...
Roger
*
*

[_Roger Morrison]

Jersey Girl, thank you for your thoughts. I'll resond inthis...

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.

Jersey Girl, I was addressing an LDS issue, as "I" view it...Other denominations might behave likewise, so be it...My last time at Church? Relevance??
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.

I'm having trouble with my computer, so I can't respond as intended. I'm also having difficulty with your coherhence?? You seem to think I am void of understanding Child-development? Not completely;-)

[_Roger Morrison]

Jersey Gal, I'll try to address some of your many points re my objection to LDS Indoctrination of their children, (and others of all ages)... You said, pertaining to mothers:

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?
There was tremendous objection to that when the FLDS did so...

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.

If there is any segment of society that is deserving of praise and gratitude it is women who are GOOD "mothers...raising...children..." Obviously not all mothers or fathers are GOOD parents. Were they so, as you pointed out in another post, we would not have the social dysfunctions of the past, and of the present

I think I'll cut this off here. I hope I've offered some acceptable explaination for my (over?)
reaction to the Quad for Kids...

LDS"teaching" is in most cases beyond the norm of pedegogy. It is with all intent and purpose to instil Mormon Doctrine (INDOCTRINATE) into the minds of its members. Their success is sufficient to have created The Corporation Of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Is this all bad? No. Is it all good? Not yet...

But given time and the application of intelligence, integrity, honesty and excellence..Who knows?? Other human aspirations have brought forth marvels, or you wouldn't be reading this...
Roger
*
*

[_Roger Morrison]

Happy Father’s Day, Roger!

Because of various conflicts, our family (son, daughter-in-law, and two little grand-kids) will be at our house here July 4th weekend.

JAK

Thanks JAK! Enjoy your July 4th Weekend!

Roger :-)

[_JAK]

Harmony as quoted by Roger:
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?
post reference

What does “strengthen their faith” actually mean? It seems to mean indoctrination in the faith. Religious mythology inherently is designed to enforce religious bias in favor of a particular dogma. It inherently discourages tolerance and intellectual inquiry. For those and other reasons, religious dogma is designed to short-cut the intellectual process today. In that, it’s a negative.

Centuries ago, religious myth was (or may have been in some cases) an attempt to explain that which was not understood. A made-up story about something in the past might have done little harm in that there was nothing to do about the story.

However, today, some religious dogma still attributes certain illness to sin as if sin of an individual was the cause of a serious illness. While most people of religious indoctrination today utilize doctors and hospitals, some refuse blood transfusions or medication to treat diabetes in children. Recently, a national report of parents who refused medication for a teenager on religious grounds (indoctrination) were called before the court on charges of “child neglect” and “child abuse.” The parents said they were practicing their religion. They said they prayed to God for healing, and it was God’s will that the child die.

That, and many other stories of indoctrination are examples illustrating the dangers and harm which comes from religious indoctrination.

To argue that “there is nothing inherently wrong” with indoctrination is to express a flawed argument. There is something wrong with it. To reiterate, not all religious indoctrination precludes sound medical care today. Centuries ago, there was no sound medical care. It made little difference what the mythology was. Today, it can make the difference between life and death or good health and compromised health.

Likely, harmony was not thinking of it in the parameters of these illustrations. Most hospitals in the USA when admitting a patient ask: Do you have any religious objection to blood transfusions or other medical procedures such as intravenous therapy for medication and fluids?

That’s an important question for which hospitals are required to establish answer. They also generally ask if there is a living will on file with that hospital. There are numerous religious dogmas which strenuously prohibit blood transfusions and certain other medical treatments.

Those treatments were non-existent centuries ago. Thus, centuries ago, much religious mythology was virtually irrelevant. However, even in the United States two hundred years ago, it was a medical practice to bleed people who were thought to be ill as a result of “bad blood.” Of course we know today that was the wrong thing to do. And at that time medical practice was a far cry from what it is today.

No one today who reads to a child “Aesop’s Fables” or “Mother Goose” does so with the intent to “strengthen faith.” Attempting to join religious doctrine with story-reading as harmony did above is faulty interlace.

Roger responded to harmony:
No. Of course not. Your examples are knowingly sold, and purchased, as entertaining fiction. Other childrens' books of non-fiction--biographies, history, etc as well as entertaining are published to inform of factual events and persons...

This is a correct analysis.

Roger responded to harmony:
OTOH, "...books used...to strengthen (religious) faith..." are meant to influence and persuaid belief in mythology and legend of the past, as if was/is factual and true. In many cases, especially in LDSism, it is disbelieved at risk of (eternal) death! As you well know!?

Correct analysis. Indoctrination has the intent to persuade that a story (a mythology) is truth. Further, it is intended that the truth not be questioned. This is not unique to “LDSism.” It applies to most religious organizations (denominations, sects, cults). The criticism is about presenting to impressionable children indoctrination which is intended to lock in those children to the religious group for life.

It seems that Roger’s objection is (in part) to that use of indoctrination. Telling or teaching children religious myth as if it were God-given truth presents an inherent danger to those children.

Religious parents (well indoctrinated) who deny their child medication to treat juvenile diabetes because of religious myth endanger their child. They are misinformed. The know little about modern medical science and what it can do for their child. They are unable to choose information over religious myth. Why? It is because they, themselves were indoctrinated. That indoctrination results in ignorance in 2009.

In 1800, the best medical practice knew very little of what medical science knows today. So belief in what was incorrect/wrong made little difference. Even the “doctors” were misinformed and engaged in practice that ultimately killed the patient (or the patient survived in spite of wrong treatment).

The more people are able to treat religious myth for what it is and the more they are capable of being relatively agnostic about notions contrary to fact, the greater their capacity to be open to intellectual inquiry. Moreover, the better they are able to engage and utilize the knowledge which others have. We cannot all be skilled physicians. We can take advantage of their skill and expertise. When indoctrination in religion precludes access to information and the application of that information, such indoctrination is dangerous and harmful.

In light of the first post in this thread, what do we want for our children? If we want faith over fact, we want to indoctrinate those children to reject information that contradicts religious dogma. It is inevitable that ancient beliefs passed on to generation after generation will be contradictory to discoveries resulting from honest intellectual inquiry.

JAK