another case in point against homeschooling?

[RedHeadGal]

A family in my ward homeschools, and last week I heard one of the children (age 10) loudly telling another child that Native Americans really aren't native because they had to come from somewhere else first, so if they are native, then so are white people. Now I take his point that it might not be the best possible name (and indeed, I'm not even sure it's the correct name any more). But what bothered me about it was his attitude, which seemed to be very dismissive of the cultural heritage that name seeks to protect.

The 8 yo child from that family is one of my Primary students and yesterday we were talking about the Holy Land on a map, and I was saying how there are many different faiths that consider the land to be holy for different reasons. So the 8 yo homeschool student suddenly starts to loudly correct me for calling Muslims by that name. He said something like Muslims are the same as Jews, and you shouldn't call them that. I think I said something like "okay, that's not right" and changed the subject. I have no idea what he was talking about.

But I came close to talking to his mother about it last night when I ran into her. Beacuse what is going on in that "HOME SCHOOL"? I chose not to, though. I didn't think it was likely to end well.

[SeattleUte]

The Seattle version of homeschooling is co-ops. This is the leftist version and no less awful.

[MikeWaters]

I am partially the product of disrupted orthodoxy.

Disrupted by my primary and sunday school teachers in a university-populated ward.

Kids will puzzle over statements that contradict dogma for many years, you have no idea.

Example: I had a substitute seminary teacher who said, "How do you know that the Lord won't give the priesthood to women?"

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am partially the product of disrupted orthodoxy.

Disrupted by my primary and sunday school teachers in a university-populated ward.

Kids will puzzle over statements that contradict dogma for many years, you have no idea.

Example: I had a substitute seminary teacher who said, "How do you know that the Lord won't give the priesthood to women?"

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask. I want my children to have teachers like your substitute seminary teacher. But in order for that teacher to be effective, he needs to be a foil. So who is going to be the foil? A substitute teacher, or me? But do I want to be the foil to the orthodoxy, or do I want to be the source of the orthodoxy?

I envision being both: I'll teach the principles as I have faith in them, but act as a foil in questioning and seeking understanding.

How do you teach the gospel to your children? Primary orthodoxy? Or substitute seminary teacher?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask. I want my children to have teachers like your substitute seminary teacher. But in order for that teacher to be effective, he needs to be a foil. So who is going to be the foil? A substitute teacher, or me? But do I want to be the foil to the orthodoxy, or do I want to be the source of the orthodoxy?

I envision being both: I'll teach the principles as I have faith in them, but act as a foil in questioning and seeking understanding.

How do you teach the gospel to your children? Primary orthodoxy? Or substitute seminary teacher?

There are many factors, but one of the largest is the personality or personage or whatever you want to call it, of the kid himself/herself.

That moment stuck with me, probably didn't stick with most of the kids.

Zulu had many of the same teachers as me, I think he was raised in a little bit more strict manner than me, and he may tend to be slightly more orthodox than me, I don't know. Lots of factors.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Lots of factors.

Insightful.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Levin

I envision being both: I'll teach the principles as I have faith in them, but act as a foil in questioning and seeking understanding.

Right. You give your kids both sides of the story at the same time. I think you can mess your kids up by focusing entirely on the positives of the Church as much as you can by focusing exclusively on the negatives.

If you think it's worth remaining a member of the Church, you just tell your kids what you like about the Church along with what you dislike or disagree with. As long as you don't focus exclusively on the negative or controversial aspects of the Church, your kids will actually have a stronger testimony because they have heard all the "bad stuff" about the Church from you and they will realize the bad stuff doesn't have to matter that much.

Examples (things my parents may have said)
"The historical narrative of the Book of Mormon is not supported by archeological evidence. There were no horses. Joseph Smith himself admitted there may be errors and they were his errors. So it's not all or nothing. I love King Benjamin's talk and it helps guide my actions toward my fellow man. I love Ether Chapter 12. These portions seem inspired to me and I believe they came from God. That's what I mean when I say 'The Book of Mormon is true.' "

"Yeah, it's interesting that the Church only gives the priesthood and most positions of authority to men and not to women. It's frustrating for a lot of women and doesn't seem right for women not to take more active roles in the Church. The Church is slow to change and may not change on issues like this for a long time. But Church leadership isn't all about authority. A lot of it is about un-paid, time-consuming service that takes you away from your family. So I'm grateful for the time Church leaders spend in their callings and although there are problems, most Church leaders do a great job."

I guess my main advice is: If you have decided to stay an active member, you probably have some excellent reasons and a testimony of certain aspects of the gospel that you will emphasize with your kids. As long as they hear your testimony of the gospel at the same time that they hear your doubts or concerns about the Church, your kids will be fine. In my personal opinion, they are even more likely to stay in the Church if you have inoculated them against the controversial aspects of Church doctrine and history, rather than letting them discover all the negative stuff on their own and feel like they have been told lies their whole life.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am partially the product of disrupted orthodoxy.

. . .

Example: I had a substitute seminary teacher who said, "How do you know that the Lord won't give the priesthood to women?"

Is asking that question an unorthodox view? Maybe answering it affirmatively is, but it seems you should at least be able to ask the question. Then again, I am apparently often out in left field.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Is asking that question an unorthodox view? Maybe answering it affirmatively is, but it seems you should at least be able to ask the question. Then again, I am apparently often out in left field.

what church do you attend? Mine is the LDS church HQed in SLC.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what church do you attend? Mine is the LDS church HQed in SLC.

haha. But seriously, when I think of the prietsthood, who holds it and what they do with it, I don't think of some static definition. In my mind, including OT times, God has changed the way in which priesthood powers are bestowed quite a few times, based on tribal lineage, etc. And then of course the obvious modern examples based on age and ethnicity among male members. My point ultimately is that it doesn't seem that crazy to me to ask the question "how do we know who holds the priesthood?" or more precisely "how do we know women won't?"

Would you believe there was a Women's Studies minor at BYU? It makes me lol now, even though I completed the minor. And we talked about this in a course or two along the way. At the Lord's university! The one headed up by those same old guys in SLC.