Can A Child Know?

[CV75]

I agree with you on a lot of this. I am not making the suggestion that a parent gets to be the judge of whether I a child knows or not.

I am saying a child should be taught the principles that are important (I agree the 5 are important) and then taught how to know for themselves so they can sincerely say 'I know' rather than a memorised 'I know...' Statement from a glove in a few minutes.

Just for the sake of discussion (duh!): 1) teaching a child to memorize the five points may be the first step (for some) in learning how to know for themselves; 2) one can speak memorized phrases from sincerity (my 2013 resolution is to memorize Matthew 5, 6 and 7); 3) many kids are fast learners when it comes to spiritual things!

[canard78]

Just for the sake of discussion (duh!): 1) teaching a child to memorize the five points may be the first step (for some) in learning how to know for themselves; 2) one can speak memorized phrases from sincerity (my 2013 resolution is to memorize Matthew 5, 6 and 7); 3) many kids are fast learners when it comes to spiritual things!

1) It could, I just feel teaching them how to get their own revelation is better

2) I agree, usually the sincerity comes first and the memorisation after

3) I agree

[Maidservant]

Given this quote was started as a response to a comment by me I guess I'd better join in.

I have no problem with people saying 'I know' if they feel they know. There is no age restriction on this. I have been saying 'I know the Book of Mormon is true' since I was about 10 years old. Why? Because I read it for 2 years, knelt down and prayed and had, what I believe to be, a personal, spiritual witness from God that it is. Not because I had a mantra to repeat from a glove (or something similar) in sharing time.

I would never discourage a child from saying 'I know' if they felt they did know. My issue is having them parrot the 5 phrases on the glove "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet and translated the Book of Mormon" etc. This is positive affirmation at best and indoctrination at worst.

Instead here is what I want for my children, and what I would prefer the church to support me in doing: I want to help my children learn how the spirit communicates with them. I want to teach them the principle of personal revelation. I want to teach them the core beliefs of the church and then encourage them to apply the process of personal revelation to the church beliefs and get an answer for myself.

The risk is that a 'testimony glove' approach is there is no foundation. If this is the only basis (parroting it at primary), when they ask themselves the question in their teens or adulthood 'How do I know, why do I know' there will be very little for them to fall back on. Despite all my questions and uncertainties, I've always been able to steady myself on the knowledge that at 10 years old I had a spiritual experience that convinced me the book is true.

The 'Testimony Glove' article in the friend has some 'instructions' for teachers at the end which includes this statement:

The article also says "A testimony is a spiritual witness of the gospel’s truthfulness given to us by the Holy Ghost." What's really important is not to repeat phrases but to teach children how to communicate with God and understand how the Holy Ghost witnesses.

Out of interest, how would you feel if your school had them stand up in class and say "I know I evolved from a monkey. I know the earth was created by a big bang." You'd be furious, right? Children trust parents and teachers and will accept what they are taught. Given those who use the testimony glove are likely to have this conviction already, they may not consider it to be a bad thing to teach the child in this way. The problem is that if it's drummed in with no opportunity for the child to find out for themselves it will build a weak foundation.

I think I was more thinking from the point of view of the child than from the teacher. And I love what you have to say. I am the one who mentioned the glove, but I would hate this all to be about the glove (although if we want to go that direction too, I guess that's okay). I was more thinking along the lines of being able to stand and speak in testimony meeting and that they do know and believe what they are saying. While I understand that some make a distinction between 'know' and 'believe', I don't approach things that way. As I think I already mentioned, I don't think anyone can 'know' in the sense that I think you are using it (may be wrong in what you mean?) even *after* study and maybe not even after a witness.

I was rather startled, myself, when the glove was used in sharing time, however, the principles were thoroughly discussed. Having a device for learning is a beginning of knowledge, or can be. But again, I could care less about the glove, if it wasn't that, it would be something else (and I think the glove was only used for one lesson). I used to have a 3x5 card that I used to guide discussions on baptism with myself and my son, and I quizzed him on it later, expecting him to more or less remember the base points from my card. I didn't expect him to have studied on those particular items in that particular style of teaching. I expected him to have had a (memorized) foundation that we and he could build on forever after that.

I'm not a fan of object lessons at all, really, in Primary, because that's just not my style. I can see your concerns and more or less agree with all of them. But I would just mention that even if a child hasn't done extensive study, they know. But it is still good to challenge ourselves as teachers as well, as you say to be prepared to give our children tools.

And I didn't mean to have this discussion arrayed versus you, as it seems to have played out. I'm extremely uncomfortable with that and have no desire to participate in such a manner. I am sorry for any part that I played in that. I just thought it's an interesting issue that obviously both you and I have thought a lot about with various conclusion, so I did quote something from you.

As far as I'm concerned, public school does provide knowledge in the manner you used in the example; but that's another story.

I just think it would be a shame if we taught them that they know by having them say the words, rather than giving them the tools and opportunity to gain a personal witness that it is true.

. . . . I'm not comfortable with the idea of a glove that 'cements' them in children's minds in 'a few minutes' and has them immediately say 'I know.'

Agree with the first; admire your take on the second, although I don't really think that is what happened in our class with the glove (I wasn't the teacher, just was present). I think it was an opportunity to help them get some beginning knowledge and to say something beyond 'I love my mom and dad'. And again, overall I was just thinking from the child's point of view that I wouldn't want any reason to shut their mouths, but I'm sure that's not you either. And I do find value in modeling structure even as much as providing content. Hopefully both can be present.

[CV75]

1) It could, I just feel teaching them how to get their own revelation is better

2) I agree, usually the sincerity comes first and the memorisation after

3) I agree

Great! RE: #1, I think this is largely developmental--some can memorize earlier than others (and before revelation); some understand revelation earlier than others (and before they can memorize). Typically a balanced approach is called for.

RE: #2, How can one be sincere about something he hasn't heard or learned? I can see sincerity in hearing and learning, but sincerity about the actual subject matter would of necessity follow exposure to it. For example, in my resolution to memorize the Sermon on the Mount, I am sincere about the effort, and as I memorize, i am becoming more sincere in what I know and apply of the teachings. The more I recite the verses, the more they become my own words accompanied by my own thoughts, feelings and testimony.

[Calm]

The way my parents worked with me and I with my children is to talk with them to hear how they would say something for a talk or testimony and then I would write it down for them (if they couldn't write) and then if necessary, they would memorize their own words. That way they were more comfortable about being prepared to speak in front of people, knowing what they would say, but would still be using their own words. I think that could easily be adapted to the Testimony Glove.

I am not particularly fond of having them memorize someone else's phrases.

[Tacenda]

Isn't it interesting that a child grows in the faith of their parents also? Puts it into another realm. They are their environment in religion, if non LDS there would definitely be a need for missionaries/member missionaries/advertisement...hey, now I know why our church is pro all these things...

[ERayR]

I'll let my stake president know about your concern.

Huh. Please reread what I wrote.

[ERayR]

1) It could, I just feel teaching them how to get their own revelation is better

2) I agree, usually the sincerity comes first and the memorisation after

3) I agree

Prayer is taught quite extensively in my present ward just as it has been in all the other wards I have attended.

[CV75]

I am not particularly fond of having them memorize someone else's phrases.

Me neither (and I didn't take that approach with our kids), but it does work for some.

[changed]

I'm a convert, my family is religiously diverse (my parents were not able to convert me to their faith when I was young, I never joined their group). I bring my kids to the LDS church, but because my family (and friends) are diverse, they are around all the different faiths. We celebrated Hanukah this year with friends, ate Christmas dinner with atheists, invited our Hindu friends to the church Nativity, we have JW's at the house once or twice a month, my Catholic grandmother hasn't "sprinkled" them yet, (at least I don't think she has), but they know what a Rosary etc. etc. is. Evangelicals, baptists, etc. etc. we have friends and family in all categories. Anyways, our kids understand first hand about the many other faiths (or lack thereof) out there. two of our children have now been baptized into the LDS church, but it wasn't because they had no other options available to them. They know what the Spirit is, and made their choice accordingly.

Edited January 23, 2013 by changed

[Calm]

Me neither (and I didn't take that approach with our kids), but it does work for some.

While I admit there may be instances where this is appropriate that I haven't thought of, I would think a better solution generally would be to take the time to help the child develop enough confidence in what he had to say so he wouldn't feel the need to rely on someone else's words. Even for a child that had problem with the language, her words could be translated for her and that translation be memorised. If someone is not capable of creating their own testimony, perhaps that should be taken as a sign they are not ready to possess one yet or at least give one in front of others. Edited January 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

While I admit there may be instances where this is appropriate that I haven't thought of, I would think a better solution generally would be to take the time to help the child develop enough confidence in what he had to say so he wouldn't feel the need to rely on someone else's words. Even for a child that had problem with the language, her words could be translated for her and that translation be memorised. If someone is not capable of creating their own testimony, perhaps that should be taken as a sign they are not ready to possess one yet or at least give one in front of others.

Yes--I see these dynamics as a matter of degree, and there does come a point where a balance might get tipped. Certainly a "degree" of wisdom needs to be used when teaching children and using teachings aids and methods.

[mathonihah]

God wants us to declare what we “know” to be true:

“Therefore, declare the things which ye have heard, and verily believe, and know to be true.” (D&C 80:4)

[Deborah]

I have thought about this often and many great points have been made. I do believe children can "know" with a far greater certainty than many of us grown-ups. They aren't hampered so much by the semantics of words or the many conflicting "facts" adults have to deal with. So yes children can know as they are closer to being pure spirits and without guile.

Now this doesn't mean that some little kids don't get up and make a fiasco of testimony meeting and are doing it for attention, and if one of those kids were mine I'd certainly sit down and explain what testimony means. But many of the kids that get up sincerely believe and are so trusting of what seems to be the natural state of children to have great faith.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Deborah

[pogi]

I do believe children can "know" with a far greater certainty than many of us grown-ups.

"

I totally agree!

"...I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matt 11:25).

Here is an example of Christ condoning the testimony of children:

"And the chief priests and scribes saw...the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, and said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" (Matt 21:15,16).

[Deborah]

My 4 year old grandaughter said "a mirror is to show people they have friends when they don't have any friends". I thought that was very profound. She's always having insights like that. LOL. So yes I think "out of the mouth of babes" can come profound wisdom.

[Walden]

My 5 year old will tell you that he knows that Santa is real, but that doesn't make it true.

[CV75]

My 5 year old will tell you that he knows that Santa is real, but that doesn't make it true.

Look on the bright side--it's good practice for being able to handle one's own changing viewpoint. It's better than being programmed to conclude that he doesn't know anything.

[Deborah]

My 5 year old will tell you that he knows that Santa is real, but that doesn't make it true.

And who was it that told him about Santa?

[Kenngo1969]

My 5 year old will tell you that he knows that Santa is real, but that doesn't make it true.

http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/

So there!

Edited January 25, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

We have a saying in our ward, that if Jesus came to church one day, he would come to primary. I have a primary calling, and I love it - I have felt the Spirit in there, very strongly.

On some levels, we have a need to complicate things, I think. Sometimes even the faithful among us tend to downplay the simple, easy ways by which the Lord often works. See 1 Nephi 17:40-41. Yes, there are a multitude of profound insights to plumb in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but, at bottom, it's beautifully simple ans simply beautiful. While I have no children of my own, I feel pretty safe in saying that children often are the best able to see the Gospel's beautiful simplicity and its simple beauty.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[altersteve]

My 4 year old grandaughter said "a mirror is to show people they have friends when they don't have any friends".

That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard.

[Storm Rider]

My 5 year old will tell you that he knows that Santa is real, but that doesn't make it true.

Just curious, but the Spirit bear witness to you that he knew? It is not helpful to confuse the two situations and the fact that your child "knows" Santa is real and the fact that another child knows that Jesus died for him and the Spirit bears witness of the same are two different situations completely.

[Deborah]

On some levels, we have a need to complicate things, I think. Sometimes even the faithful among us tend to downplay the simple, easy ways by which the Lord often works. See 1 Nephi 17:40-41. Yes, there are a multitude of profound insights to plumb in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but, at bottom, it's beautifully simple ans simply beautiful. While I have no children of my own, I feel pretty safe in saying that children often are the best able to see the Gospel's beautiful simplicity and its simple beauty.

To put this in another context, I have often walked with my small children or grandchildren and seen how they marvel at the smallest things. A leaf or a rock holds great fascination for them. We go along and don't notice these things but can have our sense of wonder re-awakened when we see the delight of the small child at the world around him.

[William Schryver]

I grew up in Farmington, Utah, in the old Farmington Second Ward, in the house my grandfather built on west State Street. Our ward chapel was the old Rock Church on north Main Street, one of the most charming old pioneer meetinghouses in Utah. To this day, I remember distinctly the following experience from when I was about five years old:

One of the most kind and loving sisters in the ward, Sister Olive Hodson, was teaching us about the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She displayed one of the famous First Vision paintings as she recounted the story. I listened intently as she told us of how he went into the woods to pray. The Holy Ghost bore witness to my young soul that the story she told was true. It remains one of the most memorable experiences of my life. From that moment on, I would always be able to recognize the Holy Ghost. Sister Hodson taught with the Spirit, and I knew, with a degree of certainty that has never been exceeded in my life, that our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ had truly appeared to the young Prophet Joseph Smith. I would not, from that moment forward, ever doubt the truthfulness of what Sister Hodson had taught us that day.

The Holy Ghost can bear witness of the truth – even to a five-year-old child. And, from that moment forward, I could and did bear witness that I knew.