Elder Ballard Speaks At World Congress Of Families Conference

[Russell C McGregor]

In LDS vernacular, "traditional" means man-woman marriage & family.  Do you disagree?  When stating that we nurture families, why would he need to qualify it?  Shouldn't we nurture all families?

As a matter of fact: no. We should nurture "traditional," i.e. authentic families.

Your question is not one that any faithful Latter-day Saint needs to ask.

 

The school district he cites is made up of people with varying mores and traditions.  I'm asking, if the school should provide parental notice that they are going to read a book about two princes, why shouldn't they also be expected to provide parental notice when reading a book about a prince and a princess?  If we're honoring diversity why does one set of mores and traditions get privileged over the other?

Because one is valid and the other is not.

Those who are offended by normal male-female romance and marriage are offended by the very process by which everyone -- including themselves -- came into the world.

The correct adjective for such an attitude is "misanthropic."

[rockpond]

Why should they have to?

Are you offended by any allusion to the process by which human life is propagated and perpetuated?

 

I'm not offended.  But if Elder Ballard is going to argue that a commitment to diversity and equality requires parental notification for a story about two princes falling in love, than it only follows that the same notification should be given for a story about a prince and a princess.  His logic and his invoking of "diversity and equality".  Not mine.

[rockpond]

As a matter of fact: no. We should nurture "traditional," i.e. authentic families.

Your question is not one that any faithful Latter-day Saint needs to ask.

 

Because one is valid and the other is not.

Those who are offended by normal male-female romance and marriage are offended by the very process by which everyone -- including themselves -- came into the world.

The correct adjective for such an attitude is "misanthropic."

 

Those who are offended by male-male romance are offended by the very human nature that God created.

[Russell C McGregor]

Those who are offended by male-male romance are offended by the very human nature that God created.

Does that apply to all sinful acts, which are invariably tied to our fallen human nature, or only to those that are favoured by the Privileged Class?

[Bobbieaware]

Those who are offended by male-male romance are offended by the very human nature that God created.

You say this as if the human nature we possess while in this fallen realm is a good and noble thing -- it is not. Because of the fall, as the prophet Alma warned, our human nature has become carnal, sensual and devilish. Our fallen nature is something to be overcome, not something to be coddled and nurtured. King Benjamin presents God's holy mandate that his earthbound human children strive to overcome the destructive power of the fallen human nature with great clarity and cogency:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3)

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

You say this as if the human nature we possess while in this fallen realm is a good and noble thing -- it is not. Because of the fall, as the prophet Alma warned, our human nature has become carnal, sensual and devilish. Our fallen nature is something to be overcome, not something to be coddled and nurtured. King Benjamin presents God's holy mandate that his earthbound human children strive to overcome the destructive power of the fallen human nature with great clarity and cogency:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3)

Are we now going to examine every story read to elementary school students to determine whether the characters are overcoming their fallen nature and use that as the litmus test for parental notification? (Referring back to Elder Ballard's example.)

[Bobbieaware]

Are we now going to examine every story read to elementary school students to determine whether the characters are overcoming their fallen nature and use that as the litmus test for parental notification? (Referring back to Elder Ballard's example.)

How would this be possible when modern America is ripening in iniquity and the people of influence within its secular institutions want absolutely nothing to do with God and his moral law. Even so, these same individuals propagandize for and enforce what they believe to be their own superior version of moral orthodoxy all day long, not seeing anything at all unfair or inequitable in the dogmatic imposition of their own version of moral law on the people regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not. But no matter how sincere these people might be, God will not be mocked and sooner or later anything that exists within their version of morality that does not comport to the will of God will be overthrown; and in the end God's holy law will be enthroned on the new earth forever. But for now, God will allow them to have their way so that they might be humbled to the dust when they finally come to realize what an unholy mess they've made of things.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

How would this be possible when modern America is ripening in iniquity and the people of influence within its secular institutions want absolutely nothing to do with God and his moral law. Even so, these same individuals propagandize for and enforce what they believe to be their own superior version of moral orthodoxy all day long, not seeing anything at all unfair or inequitable in the dogmatic imposition of their own version of moral law on the people regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not. But no matter how sincere these people might be, God will not be mocked and sooner or later anything that exists within their version of morality that does not comport to the will of God will be overthrown; and in the end God's holy law will be enthroned on the new earth forever. But for now, God will allow them to have their way so that they might be humbled to the dust when they finally come to realize what an unholy mess they've made of things.

In the example I was discussing, the "dogmatic imposition" was coming from Elder Ballard.

[Calm]

Removed as irrelevant now...

Edited November 3, 2015 by Calm

[rodheadlee]

 

 

Heavenly Father created a world in which homosexuality exists.  

CFR. By that line of thinking murder should be ok too.

Edited November 3, 2015 by rodheadlee

[rockpond]

CFR. By that line of thinking murder should be ok too.

CFR? What do your want me to reference? That God created this world or that homosexuality exists? For the LDS position on homosexuality, I'd point you to MormonsandGays.org.

In no way does that line of thinking suggest that murder is okay.

[CV75]

I'm not offended.  But if Elder Ballard is going to argue that a commitment to diversity and equality requires parental notification for a story about two princes falling in love, than it only follows that the same notification should be given for a story about a prince and a princess.  His logic and his invoking of "diversity and equality".  Not mine.

What is yours is your spin on what Elder Ballard's logic and references.

 

Elder Ballard is not arguing over disparate notification processes, but for a more responsible process in working toward a notification compromise than that demonstrated by the school administrators in their quest for so-called diversity and equality. He is arguing that principles that most agree on, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 be recognized and serve as a basis for coming up with a compromise.

 

I think it best to present references to his speech in context, and from the full text:

 

“I am reminded of the story of young children whose school read stories about two princes falling in love. The school presented this material with no warning or notification. When parents asked to be notified if this story were read again in the future, the school refused.”

…

“Would it really have harmed school administrators to let parents withdraw their children when the material being taught is contrary to their beliefs? The school’s decision seems like a direct assault on the role of parents in raising their children.

 

“Most of the 168 nations, including the United States, acknowledged parents’ prerogative in teaching their children when they signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, . Article 18 of this treaty states:

 

“The … Parties … undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

…

“If those who oppose us are genuine in their commitment to the values of diversity and equality, we should be able to work together to find compassion and peace. Forcing the beliefs of one onto another, as was done with the children being read material contrary to their parents’ wishes, diminishes diversity and skews the scales of equality. By engaging in compromise and extending love to all God’s children, who are our brothers and sisters, we can create a peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs.”

 

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/elder-m-russell-ballard-offers-bold-keynote-address-at-world-congress-of-families-ix/

[Ares]

Many comments with personal jabs and retorts were removed.  If you expect to have your comments saved, keep the personal sniping out of them.

[rockpond]

What is yours is your spin on what Elder Ballard's logic and references.

 

Elder Ballard is not arguing over disparate notification processes, but for a more responsible process in working toward a notification compromise than that demonstrated by the school administrators in their quest for so-called diversity and equality. He is arguing that principles that most agree on, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18 be recognized and serve as a basis for coming up with a compromise.

 

I think it best to present references to his speech in context, and from the full text:

 

“I am reminded of the story of young children whose school read stories about two princes falling in love. The school presented this material with no warning or notification. When parents asked to be notified if this story were read again in the future, the school refused.”

…

“Would it really have harmed school administrators to let parents withdraw their children when the material being taught is contrary to their beliefs? The school’s decision seems like a direct assault on the role of parents in raising their children.

 

“Most of the 168 nations, including the United States, acknowledged parents’ prerogative in teaching their children when they signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, . Article 18 of this treaty states:

 

“The … Parties … undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents … to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

…

“If those who oppose us are genuine in their commitment to the values of diversity and equality, we should be able to work together to find compassion and peace. Forcing the beliefs of one onto another, as was done with the children being read material contrary to their parents’ wishes, diminishes diversity and skews the scales of equality. By engaging in compromise and extending love to all God’s children, who are our brothers and sisters, we can create a peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs.”

 

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/elder-m-russell-ballard-offers-bold-keynote-address-at-world-congress-of-families-ix/

 

Exactly.  I don't see that I put any spin on his comments.

[CV75]

Exactly.  I don't see that I put any spin on his comments.

Consider this in how you spun his logic and references: You said that he is arguing that a commitment to diversity and equality requires parental notification for both types of books. He is not arguing that at all.

 

He is arguing that commitment to the values of diversity and equality calls for engaging in a process leading to compromise, and not the action of the school administrators to refuse the parents’ request, closing the door to compromise.

[rockpond]

Consider this in how you spun his logic and references: You said that he is arguing that a commitment to diversity and equality requires parental notification for both types of books. He is not arguing that at all.

 

He is arguing that commitment to the values of diversity and equality calls for engaging in a process leading to compromise, and not the action of the school administrators to refuse the parents’ request, closing the door to compromise.

 

Your first statement is incorrect.

 

Your second statement is the part that I am responding to.  And I agree there should be a compromise.  My question was:  If parental notification should be required for a prince-prince story, why wouldn't it also be required for a prince-princess story if the goal is creating a "peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs"?  Or no notification at all?  Or some other compromise?

[KevinG]

Your first statement is incorrect.

 

Your second statement is the part that I am responding to.  And I agree there should be a compromise.  My question was:  If parental notification should be required for a prince-prince story, why wouldn't it also be required for a prince-princess story if the goal is creating a "peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs"?  Or no notification at all?  Or some other compromise?

 

Common sense and courtesy would indicate that if I am about to teach a subject that is far afield from the common standards of the community in which I teach, I might want to inform parents that I am about to do so, and allow them to make the choice to opt out if they want.

 

I cringe when I see the argument that we should avoid theocracy by replacing it with another authoritarian system based on a different moral standard.

 

How about we leave the moralizing to parents, and continue to focus on reading, writing, 'rithmetic, health, music, and basic social skills in public schools?

[rockpond]

Common sense and courtesy would indicate that if I am about to teach a subject that is far afield from the common standards of the community in which I teach, I might want to inform parents that I am about to do so, and allow them to make the choice to opt out if they want.

 

I cringe when I see the argument that we should avoid theocracy by replacing it with another authoritarian system based on a different moral standard.

 

How about we leave the moralizing to parents, and continue to focus on reading, writing, 'rithmetic, health, music, and basic social skills in public schools?

 

I didn't see anything in his comments about the school that indicate they were "moralizing".

 

The idea that you should inform parents if teaching "a subject that is far afield from the common standards of the community" is one thing.  But Elder Ballard was seemingly arguing for diversity and compromise which leads me to a different conclusion about the best course of action.

[CV75]

Your first statement is incorrect.

 

Your second statement is the part that I am responding to.  And I agree there should be a compromise.  My question was:  If parental notification should be required for a prince-prince story, why wouldn't it also be required for a prince-princess story if the goal is creating a "peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs"?  Or no notification at all?  Or some other compromise?

It is correct, as follows: He is calling for compromise (the very process the school administrators did not consider) as a reflection of commitment to diversity and equality. This is quite the opposite of your logic (not his, as you attributed it!), which calls for a specific outcome, an outcome that "only follows". The compromise would be determined by the parties involved in a far more open environment than the administrators were apparently interested in cultivating. Cultivating such an environment requires an authentic commitment to diversity and equality.

 

It would be presumptuous to define what the only right compromise is (that would be antithetical to the spirit of compromise), and he is pointing out that the interests of traditional families should be considered in that process.

[rockpond]

It is correct, as follows: He is calling for compromise (the very process the school administrators did not consider) as a reflection of commitment to diversity and equality. This is quite the opposite of your logic (not his, as you attributed it!), which calls for a specific outcome, an outcome that "only follows". The compromise would be determined by the parties involved in a far more open environment than the administrators were apparently interested in cultivating. Cultivating such an environment requires an authentic commitment to diversity and equality.

 

It would be presumptuous to define what the only right compromise is (that would be antithetical to the spirit of compromise), and he is pointing out that the interests of traditional families should be considered in that process.

 

That school administrators denied the request for parental notification does not mean that did not even consider a compromise.  Though, I agree it is presumptuous (and antithetical to the spirit of compromise) to define what the only right compromise is.  Thus the questions I have continued to ask.

 

I think that the interests of all families should be considered in that process.  That's why I have asked why someone might believe that parental notification should only be considered for a story about homosexual characters and not a story about heterosexual characters.

[CV75]

That school administrators denied the request for parental notification does not mean that did not even consider a compromise.  Though, I agree it is presumptuous (and antithetical to the spirit of compromise) to define what the only right compromise is.  Thus the questions I have continued to ask.

 

I think that the interests of all families should be considered in that process.  That's why I have asked why someone might believe that parental notification should only be considered for a story about homosexual characters and not a story about heterosexual characters.

Their outright refusal shows that they did not engage in a process leading to compromise, and so they could not consider compromises arising from a process addressing both interests. Various answers to your question would have come up through such a process if the administrators were really committed to diversity and equality and engaged in it.

[rockpond]

Their outright refusal shows that they did not engage in a process leading to compromise, and so they could not consider compromises arising from a process addressing both interests. Various answers to your question would have come up through such a process if the administrators were really committed to diversity and equality and engaged in it.

 

We don't know what process was or was not engaged in.  That's why I was asking thoughts from those here.

[Daniel2]

Wouldn't it be possible to read books teaching general ideas of not teasing people who are different without having to teach that every possible lifestyle choice is good?

For example, if someone is being teased because their mother's a Wiccan, you don't have to read a book extolling the virtues of pagan religions to little kids to handle that.

Likewise, if a Mormon was being teased for that, the teacher wouldn't have to read a book on how valid Mormonism is.

Perhaps that's the kind of thing Elder Ballard was talking about.

 

Of course it's possible to read books teaching general ideas of not teasing people who are different.  And virtually every school that I am aware of does have those kinds of books included in their curriculum.

 

Educational materials for children reflect teaching tolerance for religious differences, racial differences, disability differences, cultural differences, etc.  Here are some examples (including links to the books on Amazon):

 

Accept and Value Each Person (Learning to Get Along) (ages 3-6, grades Pre-K to 2nd)

 

We Can Get Along: A Child’s Book of Choices  (Pre-S-K)

 

The Skin You Live In (pre-S-2nd grade)

 

I Am Mixed (I Am Book) (pre-S to 2nd)

 

I Am Living in 2 Homes (I Am Book)  (pre-K to 2nd grade)

 

The Golden Rule  (Ages 4-8, Grades K and up)

 

One World, Many Beliefs (pre-K to 1st grade)

 

Kindness is Cooler, Mrs. Ruler (Ages 5-10, Grades K-5)

 

What Do You Believe? (ages 7-10, grades 2-5)

 

The Belief Book  (Age unspecified, comments mention 6-8-yr-olds)

 

The Kids Book of Religions  (Grades 3-6, ages 8-12)

 

One of my favorites that peripherally mentions (but doesn’t center on) two moms who are the main boy’s parents): 

 

The Different Dragon  (ages 4-8, Pre-K to 3rd)

 

These are the books that caused the parents to file lawsuits against the school:

 

Who’s In a Family (ages 3-7, grades pre-S to 2nd)--this is VERY neutral, doesn't list pros or cons of different types of families, just shows that "some families are like this.... others are like this..."  It's a great book, IMO.

 

The Family Book (pre-S to 2nd)

 

Molly’s Family  (pre-S to 2nd Grade)

 

And, of course, “King and King”  (ages 5-8, grades K-3rd)

 

 

Omitting mention of such observable and real-world differences as outlined in the above books would undercut the effectiveness of teaching students about good citizenship as it relates to community diversity, valuing real-world differences, getting along with others, and avoiding bullying behaviors.

 

However, I think it's a mischaracterization to suggest that any of Elder Ballard's examples we've discussed in this thread (using your words) "teach that every possible lifestyle choice is good."  King and King (as elementarily simplistic as it's plot is) doesn't advocate that gay relationships are "good" any more or less than any other prince-to-princess fairytale teaches that straight relationships "are good."  What it does do is reflect the reality that same-sex couples exist--a reality that students live in and may encounter, within their own public school and local communities.

 

It seems naïve to suggest that a school should try to teach students "to get along despite their cultural differences" using only teaching materials that omit any mention or neutral representations/depictions of the observable differences that are present in the community--especially those of minority groups which are often the target of bullying and teasing. 

 

Further justification for allowing teachers to read books like the three found in the lawsuit featuring the case that Elder Ballard referenced to is that given the overwhelming amount of stories depicting straight relationships or families headed by straight couples are read in public schools, then it's perfectly justifiable to read a few stories depicting gay relationships or families by straight couples.  That's especially true in communities which reflect such diversity in order to teach children tolerance and peaceful coexistence to become good citizens of their communities and our nation. Rockpond's posts seem to demonstrate this view, which I also agree with.

 

When one considers how many hundreds of picture books that are read in public school about straight relationships and families headed by straight couples, the fact that a school may read two or three books depicting gay relationships or families headed by gay couples is entirely reasonable.  In fact, a case could be made that it should be three or four per 97 books read over the entire year, given the demographics of divergent sexual orientations.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

 

I think that the interests of all families should be considered in that process.  That's why I have asked why someone might believe that parental notification should only be considered for a story about homosexual characters and not a story about heterosexual characters.

 

My thoughts are that because a story about heterosexual characters would have been expected and the 'norm', it is reasonable that parents would not need to be informed that such books would be a part of the curriculum.  They would already know such would be the case without a formal disclosure.  

 

In regards to heterosexuality, a parent would have known to expect such stories to be read and would have been prepared for their kids to hear such stories.  If a parent had an issue with normalizing heterosexuality, they would already know that they needed to deal with that issue before they even enrolled their kids in school.  They would know that they would need to talk to the teacher, discuss the curriculum with the school board, or whatever other options were available in order to find a solution they were comfortable with.

 

Such is not the case (especially a few years ago) with a homosexual character.  Parents would not have been prepared for such a book, and more relevant, would have had no way to prepare for an eventuality they did not know even existed.  Thus, they have no chance to deal with issues or find solutions before the book is read.

[rockpond]

My thoughts are that because a story about heterosexual characters would have been expected and the 'norm', it is reasonable that parents would not need to be informed that such books would be a part of the curriculum.  They would already know such would be the case without a formal disclosure.  

 

In regards to heterosexuality, a parent would have known to expect such stories to be read and would have been prepared for their kids to hear such stories.  If a parent had an issue with normalizing heterosexuality, they would already know that they needed to deal with that issue before they even enrolled their kids in school.  They would know that they would need to talk to the teacher, discuss the curriculum with the school board, or whatever other options were available in order to find a solution they were comfortable with.

 

Such is not the case (especially a few years ago) with a homosexual character.  Parents would not have been prepared for such a book, and more relevant, would have had no way to prepare for an eventuality they did not know even existed.  Thus, they have no chance to deal with issues or find solutions before the book is read.

 

Fair enough.  My thoughts are that if we are being compassionate, tolerant and seeking a peaceful, diverse coexistence (Elder Ballard's admonitions in the address) than all families should be equally recognized and accepted within our public schools.  That means that parental notification would either be required for stories involving all types of families or none of them.

 

I'm guessing that this is the story Elder Ballard was referring to:  http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article21135498.html(some interesting details in there, as well)

 

If I'm correct... this took place earlier this year in North Carolina.  Gay marriage was legalized there in 2014.