paul

Hello,

I am new to this board. My wife and I are expecting our first child
soon, and were talking to a number of couples we know who already have
children. Neither my wife nor I are LDS, but a number of our friends
are.


As we were talking, we happened upon the subject of the various
approaches to parental discipline. One of the couples claimed that
Mormon parents do not, as a whole, believe in spanking, that they
interpret "the rod of correction" in a more metaphorical fashion. This
was surprising to my wife and I (We belong to a large, generally
"liberal" Protestant denomination). We had simply assumed that Mormons,
though they are not Protestants, would have a similiar view on this
matter as do evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants, since it seems
that LDS and evangelicals (despite vast theological differences) hold
the same or similar views on just about every other
social/moral/political issue.


Not long after this, I did some reading on the LDS faith at our local
Borders and came across similiar info. One of the books was one of
those "For Dummies" or "Complete Idiot's Guide" (can't recall which) on
Mormonism, wherein the author (I think he said he's a Mormon elder)
said almost the exact same thing as our friends. Also, there was a book
(don't know the title) that was mostly quotes or excerpts of speeches
by LDS president Gordon Hinckley. Searching online, I found the
following info (which is the same or similiar to the quotes I read in
the Hinckley book):

Most conservative Christian groups strongly support the spanking of
children; they follow the many Biblical passages in the book of
Proverbs which they believe require parents to discipline their
children through the use of physical force and pain. However, the LDS
church has consistently discouraged this approach to child rearing.
President Hinckley: "called physical abuse of children unnecessary,
unjustified and indefensible." He said: "I have never accepted the
principle of 'spare the rod and spoil the child.' I am persuaded that
violent fathers produce violent sons. Children don't need beating. They
need love and encouragement."


Certainly no child should be subject to "beating" or "abuse", but does
this mean that LDS parents are actively discouraged or forbidden from
using any degree of spanking with regard to their children. Or is it
simply up to the individual?


What are the current attitudes and practices of LDS parents today? Do
they differ from years past, or have they always been as described
above?


One other thing, in the above mentioned book, Mr. Hinckley tells of an
incident when he was a small boy and his mother heard him use the
Lord's name in vain. She responded by rinsing his mouth out with soap.
He cites this incident with approval and gratitude. I am curious in
what way, if any, this would have any connection to the spanking issue?
True, washing the mouth w/ soap isn't the same as a spanking. But it
seems, from our observation, that those parents who favor one of these
"old school" forms of correction, also believe in the other (referred
to in one source we read as "soap one end and swat the other"!).


Do LDS parents of today make use of THIS means of discipline? If so,
how widespread is it? Again, any change from years gone? A couple of
our LDS friends said they had used "soap" on a few occasions, when
backtalk or profanity was used by their children. But we don't know if
this is representative of LDS folks as a group or just this couple's
own parenting style (it seems that Mr. Hinckley's postive comments
about this practice would carry a lot of weight among Mormons--but we
can't be sure). Does the LDS church offer any kind of parenting classes
to new or expectant parents? If so, are these forms of discipline
discussed (promoted or discouraged, etc.)?

All info on these areas will be very much appreciated.


Thank you for your time and assistance,


Paul

Paul,

First off, to give you a bit of perspective, I come from a large LDS
family, and have been LDS all of my life. I grew up in Utah, but have
lived in other states since then.

My parents spanked me from time to time, but it was not a punishment
used for everything. I have a 6 year old boy and a 4 year old girl and
am proud to say that I have never spanked them. I have never had my
mouth rinsed out with soap, nor have done so to my children, but I know
others who have.

As far as the Church is conserned, as long as you are not being
abusive, discipline is up to the parents. There are no parenting
classes offered for new or expectant parents, but parenting is brought
up quite often in church or during church activities. We are
encouraged to respect our children and to discipline with love--to
always be an example.

One good quote that I can offer you comes from the Doctrine and
Covenants (one of our scriptures) Section 121 Verse 43, "Reproving
betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then
showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast
reproved, lest he esteem the to be his enemy;"

I hope this helps!

JanaLee

lisa

I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. I have three children.

Parenting is a topic that is common in church lessons but it is a
private matter, unless it involves abuse. I have never read of studied
in a church manual, handbook, or scripture that states we should spank
our children. Patience, love, discipline, and expectations are all
things mentioned often.

I grew up learning that the scripture "spare the rod and spoil the
child" has been misinterpreted. The word "rod" actually is a word that
more often resembles "stick" or "staff." A "stick" in the scriptural
sense of the "stick of Judah." So, a rod or stick, is a book. So, the
scripture means, spare the scriptures, spoil the child.

So, a common interpretation seems to always have been wrong. Gordon B.
Hinckely was speaking of the common misinterpretation. It is wrong to
assume that spanking is what the Lord expects.


Lisa
California

You probably (I'm guessing) haven't read from those sources about
feeding your baby, or changing their diapers either, right? But you
know enough to do that despite the lack of documentation.

Spanking is part of "discipline".

Or maybe it was correctly interpreted, and Gordon B. Hinckley
is the one who misinterpreted it?


The Bible never teaches that a "stick" equates to a "book",
In fact, the whole idea of "books" are foreign to the Bible,
writings being stored instead on *scrolls*.

Freud once said, "sometimes I cigar, is just a cigar."

Well, "sometimes a rod or stick, is just a rod or stick."


The original verse comes from Proverbs, and it is one of the
more common themes of that book. I think it is a useful
exercise to study them all:

First, the main one:

Pro 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son:
but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

It is useful note that both the English word "chasten", and
its Hebrew counterpart, "musar", denote punishment,
(physical) restraint, subduing, etc. And it is this idea
that is contrasted with "sparing the rod" in the verse.
I really don't think you can make a case for inserting
"Scriptures" here.

Pro 19:18 Chasten thy son while there is hope,
and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

I don't believe that your idea of "Scriptures" fits with
the idea of "crying". Kids might be bored in Bible study,
they may rebel, but I've never seen Scripture reading make
kids "cry".

Pro 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child:
for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not
die.
Pro 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod,
and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

I think "beatest him with the rod" is fairly clear, and
doesn't seem to fit your interpretation of "Scriptures".
(Unless you believe we are to spank kids with the Scriptures? <g>)

Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

What does "scourgeth" mean to you?
In English it means physical punishment or whipping,
and the Greek behind it means "flogging".


Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to tell you how
to raise your children. You have to raise them the
way you believe to be correct.

But what I take issue with is not your choice of
child-raising per se, but your (IMO) misuse of the
Scriptures to try to support it.

Have you studied this issue Biblically (see above),
or did you simply accept Gordon B. Hinckley's word for it?


According to the above, it is hardly an "assumption".


--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco
dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

tim

What do you suppose those scrolls were wrapped around? You are wrong
once again!!! FYI. If you look at the LDS scriptures, specifically the
quad or 4 in 1, today you will find the Bible, the stick of Judah, and
the BoM, the stick of Ephraim, and you will see that they have become
one in our hand. The Bible, the BoM, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great
Price have all been cross-referenced and linked together scripturally
fulfilling the below prophecy.

(Old Testament | Ezekiel 37:15 - 20)
15 ¶ The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it,
For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take
another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and
for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become
one in thine hand.
18 ¶ And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying,
Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the
stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of
Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of
Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 ¶ And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

Do you think they were wrapped around a "book"?!


I don't think so.


I'm not intersted in your LDS fiction, sorry.

<sigh>
I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
It's a very *poor* and incorrect interpretation.

The only reason anyone (ie. LDS) accepts it at all is because
LDS are hungry for *anything* they can argue to try to claim
that the Bible prophesies the Book of Mormon, no matter how
weak and false the "prophecy" actually *is*.

Btw, I noticed that you didn't respond to my study of Proverbs
at all. It's hard to argue against the truth, isn't it?

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

Well, if it was published in the Ensign, then it *MUST* be true!

Not.

The interpretation is very straightforward.
Israel and Judah were divided kingdoms, and Ezekiel was
prophesying the reuniting of the two kingdoms, by bringing
the two "sticks" (ie. kingdoms) together again.

The sticks represent Jewish *kingdoms*, not "Scripture writings".
(Hint: the interpretation is given in the text *itself*!)

In "the stick of Joseph", the Joseph referred to is the guy with
the technicolor dreamcoat, the guy sold into slavery in Egypt
by his brothers, not the guy with the gold plates in the grove.

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

andrew r

: "Tim" <timccr48-news@spammyyahoo.com> wrote in message : news:Lg7Se.526$pt.432@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net.. . :
: > Ezekiel's Sticks and the Gathering of Israel
: > By Keith Meservy
: > Ezekiel's ancient prophecy of the two "sticks"-or books-does more than
: > foresee the Bible and Book of Mormon. It marks the coming of the Book of
: > Mormon as the beginning of the great latter-day gathering.
: > Keith Meservy, "Ezekiel's Sticks and the Gathering of Israel," Ensign,
: > Feb. 1987, 4
:
: Well, if it was published in the Ensign, then it *MUST* be true!
:
: Not.
:
: The interpretation is very straightforward.
: Israel and Judah were divided kingdoms, and Ezekiel was
: prophesying the reuniting of the two kingdoms, by bringing
: the two "sticks" (ie. kingdoms) together again.
:
: The sticks represent Jewish *kingdoms*, not "Scripture writings".
: (Hint: the interpretation is given in the text *itself*!)
:
: In "the stick of Joseph", the Joseph referred to is the guy with
: the technicolor dreamcoat, the guy sold into slavery in Egypt
: by his brothers, not the guy with the gold plates in the grove.
:

Indeed - and this is known by all LDS. No LDS (of my acquantance) has ever
said the Ezekiel was talking of Joseph Smith.

Remember that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh - a son of Joseph. So the
Book of Mormon is a history (writings of) in part of Joseph's descendants.
In our belief system. I am not getting into the argument about
interpretation of Ezekiel. I just wanted to clear up what we believe in
respect to this. The Stick of Joseph is about the technicoloured dreamcoat
guy. We believe the same in this respect.

Andrew R.
: >> Btw, I noticed that you didn't respond to my study of Proverbs
: >> at all. It's hard to argue against the truth, isn't it?
:
: --
: Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco : dot ca
: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
: "[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
: but that God became a man." -- James White
: Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!
: