Ty Mansfield has worked through his challenge, and recently married a woman in an LDS temple. This caused an uproar in certain parts of the LGBT community, and there was even a website started specifically devoted to trying to persuade his fiancé, Danielle, to not go through with the marriage.
FYI - here is a website that you and others on this board might find informative, called North Star LDS, for Latter-day Saints dealing with issues surrounding homosexual attraction who desire to live in harmony with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Happy reading!
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. -Joseph Smith
"They're very conflicted about who they are, versus who they need to be for others," Fronczak said.
He added that he has never met a gay married man who has not been depressed or considered suicide: "These guys are so isolated. ... They feel there is no way out. They feel they are trapped between two worlds."
This was a recent message of hope created by staff members of Pixar.
How could we, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ, present the Gospel to the same individuals to whom this message is directed, to address these same very real feelings of despair, loneliness, fear, lack of self worth? How can we present the message to help them feel at least the same freedom, joy, and hope expressed by those who are delivering the message?
If you were a missionary receiving a referral for an individual to whom this video was directed, knowing what you know by watching the video, what would be your loving approach to expressing the hope and joy of the Restored Gospel?
There's plenty of threads discussing how we should feel about such individuals, and judging their motives. But I haven't seen many topics exploring how we could effectively and lovingly present the message of the Gospel to address their specific concerns, doubts, despair, and very real feelings, in such a way that would bring comfort, and hope, a real assurance that, indeed, "It Gets Better".
An "inner process" stands in need of outward criteria. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"In truth, there was only one Christian and he died on the cross" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 01:54 PM
elguanteloko, on 28 November 2010 - 01:46 AM, said:
"When Does It Get Better?"
While I disagree with the premise, this is just one of a myriad of arguments in favor of the government's controlling, funding (pardon the redundancy), requiring, defining, or influencing education.
The primary argument, that children who are forced into school are slaves and thus less than human, is exactly right. The argument that children thus forced would tend to see other children similarly placed as being fair targets of their reaction, and treat each other as less than human is also correct.
A third argument, that children are capable of being responsible for their own education is right in so far as children are capable of masking any such decision. However, that's the job of parents until they are. It is not the job of government, and it is not the job of government to continue to do so after the child has acquired that ability.
Further, all children (to some extent) are bullied in school. All children there are treated as slaves by the staff, including teachers. And they are slaves to the state.
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 03:10 PM
Libs, on 28 November 2010 - 02:21 PM, said:
I don't think doing away with public education is the answer to bullying. That's too much like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The problem with this parallel is that there is no live baby in that bath. He drowned long ago. And that was the intent of those who drew the water in the first place.
Read Horace Mann, A Life, by his doting wife, Mary Peabody Mann, or The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto, once the New York State "Teacher of the Year", who twice wore those laurels from New York City. "Public" schools are not what they claim to be, never were, and will always be destructive of family and individuals. That's their goal, and they are very good at it.
Lehi
Edited by LeSellers, 28 November 2010 - 03:11 PM.
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
The problem with this parallel is that there is no live baby in that bath. He drowned long ago. And that was the intent of those who drew the water in the first place.
Read Horace Mann, A Life, by his doting wife, Mary Peabody Mann, or The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto, once the New York State "Teacher of the Year", who twice wore those laurels from New York City. "Public" schools are not what they claim to be, never were, and will always be destructive of family and individuals. That's their goal, and they are very good at it.
Lehi
Those are some pretty broad statements, Lehi. I think public education has helped more than it has hurt. And to say that the goal is to destroy families and individuals is very hyperbolic. You really believe that? Seriously?
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 05:41 PM
Libs, on 28 November 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:
I think public education has helped more than it has hurt.
By what measure?
It costs more, far more, every year to have government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools (which are not a legitimate government function) than it does to support the military (which is).
The costs of a private K-12 (wadda stupid way of setting up learning) education can run from a few hundred dollars a year (for family-centered education) to $20,000 for a high-end (but not necessarily "better") school. The average in USmerica is less than $5,000, last I checked. It's a very bad economic trade off, especially when one considers that the grtf-welfare graduate can barely read his own diploma. I can teach any four year old (with normal sight and speech) to read in three months. If the grtf-welfare schools cannot do it in twelve years, and the costs (far from money alone, see below) are so horrendously high, they are not worth it, and they are destructive. That baby died long ago, and the bathwater needs to be thrown out.
Libs said:
And to say that the goal is to destroy families and individuals is very hyperbolic. You really believe that? Seriously?
It's not hyperbole, it's a fact.
Why should we not believe it? It's what Mann (the "Father" of "Public Schools") said himself. As a Unitarian, he wanted to "divorce child[ren] from [their] parents" precisely so the child would be free from his father's religion and values. Dewey, a half-century later, said, "What can they do in their hour Sunday School against thirty hours a week in our schools?"
What about William Torrey Harris (look him
up), the US Commissioner of Education who said that grtf-welfare schools were "scientifically designed" to keep a child from aspiring (or even imagining) to any position other than what they, the industrialists, had destined him to hold?
How about the "reluctance" of schoolmen (those who insist that they, and they alone know what is best for the children, they, not their parents) to even allow a child to opt out of "education" (let's call it what it is: indoctrination) on sex, climatology, and a host of other subjects?
The Reverend Robert Dabney warned Protestants, in the 1860s, that using the grtf-welfare schools to coerce Catholic children into being "good Americans" would eventually backfire on them, and that the same power that they wielded then would be used on their grand children to coerce them into becoming "good Americans" of a later age, and that these new, "good Americans" would not be Christian.
How about this article in Overland Monthly Magazine in 1884?
William A. Beatty said:
Compulsory attendance would assure the presence of the Mormon children. Enlightenment ... would reduce to a minimum the influence of the Mormon priesthood.
"A Practical Consideration of the Mormon Question"
Of course, what he means by "enlightenment" is forcing them to believe what he believed, and "the Mormon priesthood" is the father of the child in question.
If that's not an open attempt to destroy the family, then no such thing exists. But it is Satan's (at least) interim goal to destroy the family because that is Father's fundamental organization for "[His] work and [His] glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
You're using quotes from the 1800's to try and prove something? Sorry, I'm not buying.
Before public education, most children in this country were working ridiculously long hours and barely educated, if at all. Sorry, I don't wish to return to the "good old days".
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 08:06 PM
Libs, on 28 November 2010 - 06:45 PM, said:
You're using quotes from the 1800's to try and prove something? Sorry, I'm not buying.
Your choice, but nothing has changed in the intervening 150 years. And, please note, that a century before government took over "education", we saw the most outstanding men civilization has ever seen: Jefferson never went to a grtf-welfare school. Franklin did not; Washington, Hamilton, Madison, none of them did because the disasters had not been invented yet.
Dewey was in the XX, not the XIX, and there are many, many others who live yet today who echo the same sentiments. Did you read The Underground History of American Education? It is a XXI product, and, although it draws heavily on the origins of the grtf-welfare schools, it is contemporary, because Gatto, a man I have met and broken bread with, tells his own story. You might be interested in his letter to the eidtors of the Wall Street Journal.
John Taylor Gatto said:
Government schooling is the most radical adventure in history. It kills the family by monopolizing the best times of childhood and by teaching disrespect for home and parents. The whole blueprint of school procedure is Egyptian, not Greek or Roman. It grows from the theological idea that human value is a scarce thing, represented symbolically by the narrow peak of a pyramid.
That idea passed into American history through the Puritans. It found its "scientific" presentation in the bell curve, along which talent supposedly apportions itself by some Iron Law of Biology. It’s a religious notion, School is its church. I offer rituals to keep heresy at bay. I provide documentation to justify the heavenly pyramid.
Socrates foresaw if teaching became a formal profession, something like this would happen. Professional interest is served by making what is easy to do seem hard; by subordinating the laity to the priesthood. School is too vital a jobs-project, contract giver and protector of the social order to allow itself to be "re-formed." It has political allies to guard its marches, that’s why reforms come and go without changing much. Even reformers can’t imagine school much different.
David learns to read at age four; Rachel, at age nine: In normal development, when both are 13, you can’t tell which one learned first—the five-year spread means nothing at all. But in school I label Rachel "learning disabled" and slow David down a bit, too. For a paycheck, I adjust David to depend on me to tell him when to go and stop. He won’t outgrow that dependency. I identify Rachel as discount merchandise, "special education" fodder. She’ll be locked in her place forever.
In 30 years of teaching kids rich and poor I almost never met a learning disabled child; hardly ever met a gifted and talented one either. Like all school categories, these are sacred myths, created by human imagination. They derive from questionable values we never examine because they preserve the temple of schooling.
That’s the secret behind short-answer tests, bells, uniform time blocks, age grading, standardization, and all the rest of the school religion punishing our nation. There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen—that probably guarantees it won’t.
How much more evidence is necessary? Good schools don’t need more money or a longer year; they need real free-market choices, variety that speaks to every need and runs risks. We don’t need a national curriculum or national testing either. Both initiatives arise from ignorance of how people learn or deliberate indifference to it. I can’t teach this way any longer. If you hear of a job where I don’t have to hurt kids to make a living, let me know. Come fall I’ll be looking for work.
Libs said:
Before public education, most children in this country were working ridiculously long hours and barely educated, if at all. Sorry, I don't wish to return to the "good old days".
Your choice.
But your accusation is not born out by the facts. Yes, some children worked long hours, but only because that was the best choice they had: work or starve (along with their families, in many cases). And, when child labor laws displaced them, two things happened that were not supposed to (but were very predictable): prices rose generally (inflation), and many people did come very close to starvation, if not actually crossing that line.
"Education" and "schooling" are not the same thing. Notice it's called "compulsory attendance, not "compulsory learning". Schooling is not the best choice for most children and their families. But, even were we to assume it so, grtf-welfare schools are not at all the best way to insure children are educated. As I pointed out earlier, grtf-welfare schools are failing to do the one job most people expect of them: they are not educating their inmates. When nearly half of the students cannot read after twelve years of "education", one must wonder if the taxpayer is getting his money's worth.
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
Lehi, we still have many, many outstanding men and women in this society. I would say many more than ever in history, in part, due to our educational system. The United States, for your information, has a 99% adult literacy rate. On average, people are more well educated than ever before, in history...and MORE people are educated than ever before. In my generation, almost all of my close relatives (siblings & cousins) went to college, whereas, our parents didn't even graduate from highschool. My parents both quit to go to work, because their families needed the income (especially my dad's family, where there were 13 children). Educationally, things have only improved; that's apparent even from just a brief survey and historical comparison.
Not sure what you think would replace public education. I'd venture to guess most families could not afford to pay for private schools.
The public education system can certainly be improved, but it sure isn't as worthless as you are making it out to be. It's actually been quite a blessing to our country.
(Those starving kids, you talked about, were probably starving anyway, as they were only being paid pennies or less a day - they were nothing more than slave labor - outrageous abuse of children...and you think that was okay?)..
Can somebody please tell me what exactly does Public Education have to do with the subject of this thread? You guys lost me.
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. -Joseph Smith
I'm sorry. You're right, it's way off topic. Not sure how we got there.
(I think it was Lehi's fault )
We went Math.random() ;-)
...my religion is built on the belief system and I believe that God will always find a way to make things just and fair even though it seems impossible. I accept this axiom without proof because I believe and hope that it must be true and in my heart I know it's true. That' s my testimony... -- Ajax18
As anyone who has ever been around a cat for any length of time well knows, cats have enormous patience with the limitations of the human kind. -- Cleveland Armory ... I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior. -- Hippolyte Taine
[On what God will say of one's own spiritual valiance]... I'd be content if He could just say to me, "Well, you weren't completely worthless." - Nathair
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 09:25 PM
Libs, on 28 November 2010 - 08:58 PM, said:
I'm sorry. You're right, it's way off topic. Not sure how we got there.
(I think it was Lehi's fault )
The Crazy Glove posted the "When will it get better" Youtube clip, wherein the narrator said, correctly, that one reason homosexual youth (which I deny even exist, but that's another story) were bullied in school because they were forced to go to the place where others could pick on them. GRTF-Welfare schools are no better for any children than they are for homosexuals.
It may have been my fault, but I did not raise the question. Of course, the answer is, "GET YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF THE GRTF-WELFARE SCHOOLS, AND GET THEM OUT NOW!!!" and that answer applies no matter what the problem may be. GRTF-Welfare schools are evil from the git go, and will never be anything but evil until they are fully abandoned. They were designed that way, and there is no way to fix them: they are working according to specification.
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
Lehi – I happened to attend public schools when I grew up, and I turned out just fine - thank you. The reality is that many parents send their kids to public schools, including Church members, and they aren’t going to go away. They are a part of the fabric of our society. The key is to try and send your kids to the best schools – whether they are public or private.
Are you suggesting that parents either shell out the money to send their kids to a private school or home school them? That might work for some people, but it is not practical for most people.
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. -Joseph Smith
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 28 November 2010 - 10:00 PM
Sky, on 28 November 2010 - 09:46 PM, said:
Lehi – I happened to attend public schools when I grew up, and I turned out just fine - thank you.
How much better would you have "turned out" had you gone to a school where your needs were paramount, rather than the bureaucracy's? I heard, in countless discussions in the Teachers' Lounge (yes, I taught in grtf-welfare schools) that school would be a great place to work if it weren't for those dratted kids.
There is no way to judge this, but I can confidently say that you would be a much better person, and be better educated (not "schooled") without a government-run, tax-funded, welfare school in your past.
Sky said:
The reality is that many parents send their kids to public schools, including Church members, and they aren’t going to go away. They are a part of the fabric of our society.
Yes, Saints have been ignoring the counsel of the Brethren on this matter for a century now. And, as one who believes that God does inspire His servants, I know it to have been a cause of much suffering and loss of blessings for individuals and for the Kingdom.
Sky said:
The key is to try and send your kids to the best schools – whether they are public or private.
There are no "good" grtf-welfare schools!
Sky said:
Are you suggesting that parents either shell out the money to send their kids to a private school or home school them? That might work for some people, but it is not practical for most people.
There are a myriad of options, but these are the two that most people think of.
Whether it is practical is not the question one should ask. The question is whether it is right for the children and for their families. GRTF-Welfare Schools are never right for anyone, except the state (who owns them), the teachers and other bureaucrats who get their pay from them, and the corporations who supply all those very expensive textbooks. Oh, and the Bluebell bus company. It is not good at all for taxpayers, it is not good in the least for the students, and it is disastrous for their families.
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
Lehi – sorry but I just do not share your extreme right-wing, anti-government ideological views about public schools. And frankly, this is not the place to be venting off your steam about it anyway.
I also wish that you would leave the Brethren out of it – CFR where they have told us to not send our kids to public schools. For you to claim Church endorsement of your views on this subject is highly suspect to me. I consider myself pretty up-to-date on the counsel that the Brethren give, and I try to follow it to the best of my ability.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But your views are just that – yours – and they are not binding on me or on the Church.
Edited by Sky, 28 November 2010 - 11:10 PM.
The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. -Joseph Smith
Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.
Contributor
9,845 posts
Posted 29 November 2010 - 09:57 AM
Sky, on 28 November 2010 - 11:02 PM, said:
Lehi – sorry but I just do not share your extreme right-wing, anti-government ideological views about public schools.
Contrary to your assessment, I am not anti-government, I am anti-unconstitutional government, which is what we have today.
Also, please, do not accuse me of being "right-wing". I am as adamantly opposed to right-wing statists and statism as I am opposed to left-wing statist and statism. I am a libertarian, "libertarian", as in "liberty". I want government, but I want it small and I want it to follow the law, neither of which is the case in USmerica (or much of any place else in the world) today.
The schools we have, the government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools we have are the result of an anti-family thrust that has run throughout the history of governments.
The reason governments hate families is that strong families do not need (or want) much government, but weak ones do. As the primary purpose of government is to control people's lives, those in power will always use whatever tools they can to weaken families. And grtf-welfare schools do just that, as I have shown (and no one has refuted).
Sky said:
I also wish that you would leave the Brethren out of it
Why? They have spoken clearly on the matter, and no one here has shown that any new counsel has been received. Virtually every prophet and many Apostles in the modern Church have told us to keep our children away from the grasp of government-controlled schools. You can find an anthology of their sayings here. Here's a sampling.
Brigham Young said:
I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it... I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves and give one tenth to the poor... Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! (Journal of Discourses Vol. 18, p. 357)
John W. Taylor said:
There is a spirit working among the Saints to educate their own offspring. If our children will be all we will have for a foundation of glory in eternity, how needful that they be properly trained... There are wolves among us in sheep's clothing ready to lead astray our little ones... Wolves do not devour old sheep when there are any young ones. I have herded sheep long enough to know that. Look after your children. (Collected Discourses 2:138.)
John Taylor said:
Let our children be taught by our friends and not by our enemies... Educate your children, and seek for those to teach them who have faith in God and in his promises as well as intelligence. (The Gospel Kingdom, p. 276-277)
One of the latest movements has in view the revocation of all certificates given to school teachers who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ, which means the placing of our children, by the help of our taxes, under the tuition of those who would gladly eradicate from their minds all love and respect for the faith of their fathers. The duty of our people under these circumstances is clear; it is to keep their children away from the influence of the sophisms of infidelity and the vagaries of the sects. Let them, though it may possibly be at some pecuniary sacrifice, establish schools taught by those of our faith, where, being free from the trammels of State aid, they can unhesitatingly teach the doctrines of true religion combined with the various branches of a general education. And in this connection permit us to urge upon the Saints in all the Stakes of Zion the necessity of caring well for the education of our youth. If we are to be a powerful people in the near future, wielding potent influence for good among the peoples of the earth, we must prepare ourselves for those responsibilities, and not expect that ignorance will avail us in that day; but a knowledge of true principle, of doctrine, of law, of the arts and sciences, as well as of the Gospel, will be urgently necessary to enable to fulfill, to God's glory and the renovation of the world, the responsibilities which we believe will, by right of our calling, at that time be most assuredly ours. (Messages of the First Presidency, 3:58)
Joseph F. Smith said:
There are three dangers that threaten the church from within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see them, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual impurity. (Gospel Doctrine p. 312-313.)
Can you find a Catholic that will send his children to a Protestant school, or a Protestant who will send his to a Catholic school; they, each, send their children to their own schools, and they take all the pains and use all the means in their power to rear their children in their own faith, being convinced that is the proper course for them to pursue. It is right that they should do so. But some Latter-day Saints are so liberal and unsuspecting that they would just as soon send their children to Mr. Pierce down here as to anybody else. I would not do it. However good a man Mr. Pierce may be, he should not teach one of my children as long as I had wisdom and intelligence to teach him myself, or could find a man of my own faith to do it for me. (Journal of Discourses 14:287-288)
Heber J. Grant said:
I will thank the Lord when the public sentiment of America shall say that a man who does not believe in prayer cannot teach our children, at the expense of the public. Why should my money be used to employ a man to teach my children infidelity and a lack of faith in God? I remember as a boy, when we had our small common schools, that they hired a non-Mormon to teach in the Twelfth Ward school. He got up and said: "I understand that in the past you have prayed in this school. We will not have any more prayers, because we do not know whether or not there is anybody to pray to." I consider it an outrage that the money of people who believe in the Lord God Almighty can be spent to teach our children that kind of "rot." I endorse Nicholas Murray Butler's words, "The fool who says in his heart: 'There is no God,' finds his god when he is looking in the mirror." (Conference Report, April, 1922: 167.)
Do not let your children out to specialists... but teach them by your own precept and example, by your own fireside. Be a specialist yourself in the truth. Let our meetings, schools and organizations, instead of being our only or leading teachers, be supplements to our teaching and training in the home. No child in a hundred would go astray, if the home environment, example and training were in harmony with the truth of the gospel of Christ, as revealed and taught to Latter-day Saints. (Gospel Doctrine, p. 302)
Heber C. Iverson said:
If you want to know what has de-Christianized the country, I point my finger to the provided school from which Christ has been turned out and the door slammed in his face. The thought of it makes me bury my face in my hands and sob with sorrow and shame. (CR, April 1920, p.85)
George Albert Smith said:
We have in our public schools and in our universities, men and women who are trained, their minds are lighted up by the teachings of men, and it is remarkable to what a degree the business of life has been brought to the attention of the human family; but most of our schools operate as a result of the wisdom of man and exclude God, the source of all truth. We spend millions of dollars in the education of the hand and of the mind, and we exclude from many of these institutions all knowledge of our heavenly Father, who gave to us the hand and the mind. In fact, there has been an effort made by some educators to create in the minds of pupils under their watch-care a contempt for the fact that the world we live in is controlled by our Father in heaven. (CR, April 1926, p.144)
David O. McKay said:
God has implanted deep in the souls of parents the truth that they cannot with impunity shirk the responsibility to protect childhood and youth. There seems to be a growing tendency to shift this responsibility from the home to outside influences, such as the school and the church. Important as these outward influences are, they never can take the place of the influence of the mother and the father. Constant training, constant vigilance, companionship, being watchmen of our own children are necessary in order to keep our homes intact. The character of the child is formed largely during the first 12 years of his life. During that period he spends 16 times as many waking hours in the home as in school, and 126 times as many hours in the home as in the church. Children go out with the stamp of these homes upon them, and only as these homes are what they should be will children be what they should be. (Steppingstones to an Abundant Life, 322.)
Sky said:
CFR where they have told us to not send our kids to public schools. For you to claim Church endorsement of your views on this subject is highly suspect to me. I consider myself pretty up-to-date on the counsel that the Brethren give, and I try to follow it to the best of my ability.
You seem to be claiming that the Brethren have given us new counsel. If so, please produce it, in context.
Sky said:
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But your views are just that – yours – and they are not binding on me or on the Church.
As I said above, no one here has shown that any new counsel has rescinded this: keep our children out of the grasp of the state and its godless schools.
Lehi
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp
0
Jaybear, on 24 November 2010 - 08:49 AM, said:
)
