Michelle Lehnardts Series on Raising Real Men

August 22, 2013Jenny Marie Hatch Leave a comment

I am a mother to three sons, but Michelle has been raising five boys and has been writing a series of essays on Raising Real Men. Her most recent blog post describing the intellectual climate in her home was such a great read I just had to share it.

Click HERE to read.

QUOTE:

2nd in a three (or four part) series on Raising Real Men in a Rude Crude World

When I asked Hans and Xander separately on their ideas on raising smart boys I expected them to cite all sorts of examples such as reading books, learning a musical instrument, visiting the library etc. I was surprised by their nearly identical answer– “be prepared to be very different.” My older boys and my nieces from California confirmed the same idea; it is much more socially acceptable for a girl to “be smart” than a boy.

I realized my sons had gone to the very crux of educating boys with their first response. Google “American boys falling behind” or any sort of variation on the those words and millions (it’s Google after all) of articles pop up decrying boys’ lag behind girls in American schools.

An article from NPR pegs the problem, “We have lots of boys who at an early age start to think of education as being not masculine enough.”

How did we get here? In the past, education was highly valued. When did “smart” equate with “uncool”? And doesn’t every parent want to raise intelligent, creative children– boys and girls?

I have ideas on some of the reasons, but I’ll get to those a bit later. If you’ve read this far, you’re the kind of parent who cares about education, so I’ll offer up my best tips.

Take time to educate yourself. I’d placed this further down on the list, but my boys insisted nothing could be more important. When parents love learning, their kids will love it too. Read the paper, listen to the radio, teach yourself an instrument, (a language, any new skill), read books and talk about them, study the scriptures and enthusiastically share your ideas. Erik is the best example of this I’ve ever seen. He often says he doesn’t think he’s particularly smart; he just takes the time to learn. He’s always reading out loud something from Jewish World Review, citing a story he heard on NPR or studying books on economics and history. His example fuels my boys’ passion for knowledge. Learning isn’t a ‘program’ or occasional activity; it’s our family culture, it’s what we do.

Believe your child is brilliant. Shinichi Suzuki oft repeated, “Every child can learn.” while Einstein quipped, “Every child is born a genius.” Not every child can become a concert violinist or a nuclear physicist, but they CAN learn. We need to believe in our children’s abilities. Teach your child bits of foreign language, math, science, music…

Read to your kids. This advice has been given so often and expanded on so many times, I won’t belabor the issue. Just don’t stop reading to your kids when they learn to read themselves– they still crave your voice and your attention.

Turn off the TV. Again, this may seem a bit obvious, but lack of TV does more than free up time for reading and practicing the piano. By avoiding commercial television, you also avoid modern stereotypes of masculinity. My kids don’t see the goofy, crude men in beer commercials and sit coms because they don’t see commercials or sit coms at all. With the advent of Netflix streaming we can no longer claim to be TV free– my kids have caught up on all kinds of series on my computer, but at least Netflix demands a conscious choice–not mindless flipping through channels. Xander tells me the gifted program at his school is full of kids who don’t have cable TV. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Buy books. Go to the library, borrow from friends, but make sure you have plenty of books in your home. I’ve heard expense cited as an excuse, but with garage sales, used book stores and the library close-out shelf, you can easily amass a decent library for $10 a month. It’s important to have books where you can fold the corners, write in the margins and read over and over like revisiting an old friend.

Read your kids books. At first, I did this as a precaution for my ambitious little readers. I wanted to make sure their books were age appropriate (handing Stefan Schindler’s List at age ten was NOT a good idea). But as they got older the boys (and now Mary) began to hand me books they’d read and loved. By reading their choices I was able to discuss themes and plotlines with them and because I listened to their recommendations, they were more willing to listen to mine. I’ve read all the Artemis Fowl, Pendragon, Fablehaven and Incarceron series my boys love. They’ve introduced me to Brandon Sanderson’s fantasy novels and spy books like Alex Ryder. I’ve learned to enjoy these genres I’d never found interesting before and I believe many of the best modern writers are penning children’s and young adult fiction. In return they’ve been much more willing to read masterpieces such as Peace Like a River, A Tale of Two Cities, Les Miserables and anything and everything from C.S. Lewis. In fact, any time my kids are grouped together reading (filling every couch and chair) one of them will be holding a C.S. Lewis book.

Play an instrument. Note the emphasis on play. You don’t need to raise the next Mozart (we all know his father was bit overbearing) but thousands of studies have shown the value in learning music. In my own home, I’ve seen musical training teach children sensitivity, math skills, the ability to work hard. Yes, music lessons and instruments can be expensive but there are a thousand ways to navigate costs. Trade skills with a friend, take advantage of community programs, practice on the widow’s piano next door…

When your child finds an interest, run with it! Nothing hastens learning more than personal enthusiasm. Obsessed with dinosaurs? Check out every dinosaur book in the library and visit your local Natural History Museum. Rocks, trains, animals, space– same drill. Just don’t be surprised when they drop that interest and move on to the next.

Be willing to place education above sports. Sigh…. this is by far the most controversial subject on my list. Sports ARE the true American religion; especially where we live. But when we have to choose, we choose education every time…..

….The more our boys own their intelligence, the sooner the deficiencies in boys education will disappear. As parents (and especially as fathers) we can make learning masculine again. We don’t need to swing the pendulum back to educating boys and ignoring girls; but move forward, where education is a priority for everyone.

I’m convinced our generation of parents can raise the most intelligent and creative wave of children the world has yet to witness.”

I completely agree, and would encourage you to take the time to read the whole post. Her thoughts on team sports will provide much food for thought.

JennyHatch

Talks at church: Andrew and Benjamin

August 12, 2013Jenny Marie Hatch Leave a comment

Andrew gave a talk in sacrament meeting and Benjamin spoke in Primary. I was so pleased with the excellent job they both did.

JennyHatch

Meridian Magazine: I don’t have a Testimony of The History of The Church

August 7, 2013Jenny Marie Hatch Leave a comment

Davis Bitton: To read this whole article click HERE

Davis Bitton, who died in 2007, was a regular columnist on Meridian. He was president of the Mormon History Association, professor of history at the University of Utah, and official Assistant Church Historian in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This article, somewhat shortened from what we published years ago, is a classic, a statement from a scholar who had looked deeply into Church history and, like so many others, cannot find anything that forces the conclusion “our enemies like to promote.”

I don’t have a testimony of the history of the church. That is why I can be a historian and also a believing Latter-day Saint. I will expand on this idea, but first let me address some related questions.

Do all well-informed historians become anti-Mormons?

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of church history and—shock and dismay!—they came across this (whatever this is) that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.

Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the Latter-day Saint historians who know the most about our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church. More precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. In fact, with few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote.

We need to reject the simpleminded, inaccurate picture that divides people into two classes. On the one hand, according to our enemies, are the sincere seekers of truth, full of goodness and charity. On the other hand, in the critics’ view, stand the ignorant Mormons. Even faithful Mormon scholars must be ignorant. Otherwise they are dishonest, playing their part in the conspiracy to deceive their people. This is the anti-Mormon view of the situation.

Can we see how ridiculous this picture is? It is a travesty on both sides. Many Latter-day Saints may not know their history in depth, but some of them know a good deal. As for Latter-day Saint scholars, as a group they compare favorably with any similar group of historians. It will not do to charge them with being dishonest. I happen to know most of them and have no hesitation in rejecting a smear of their character.

On the other hand, your typical anti-Mormon is no disinterested pursuer of the truth. If you are confronted with a “problem,” some kind of “non-faith-promoting” take on church history, the chances are that your willing helper can lay no claim to having done any significant research in Mormon history. Oblivious to the primary sources, unread in the journal literature, the critic has picked up the nugget from previous anti-Mormon writers and offers it as though it were a fresh discovery. Most of the time it is anything but new—it is a stock item in a litany of anti-Mormon claims that serves their purpose. It is a broken record.

Why does the charge accomplish anything? Because they don’t tell you how stale it is and of course will not let you know where to find the answers that have already been provided. To you the charge is new, or may be new. Falling into the trap, you think you have been deceived by the church—after all, here is something that appears to be seriously damaging to the restored gospel. Like peddlers of snake oil from time immemorial, the critic is willing to take full advantage of the situation.

How many historians who are deeply familiar with the sources on Mormon origins still find it possible to remain in the fold? We might start with names like Richard L. Bushman, James B. Allen, Glen M. Leonard, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Dean C. Jessee, and Ronald W. Walker, all of whom are thoroughly familiar with the issues and sources. Joining their ranks are younger historians like Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst-McGee. I offer just a sampling of faithful, knowledgeable historians.

I do not claim that all who study Mormon history are believing Latter-day Saints. That would be patently absurd. From the beginning, disbelieving historians have written accounts of the events. There have also been historians like Hubert Howe Bancroft who simply put the truth question on the shelf. No one denies that such approaches are possible. But there is also a long tradition of important work by Latter-day Saint scholars. In other words, those who know the most about Mormon history do not simply and inevitably join the ranks of disbelievers and Mormon-haters. It is quite possible, apparently, to know a great deal about Mormon history and still be a practicing, believing Latter-day Saint.

Why do I spend time insisting on this simple, obvious fact? Because our opponents want to leave the opposite impression. And because for many Latter-day Saints it is sufficient to know that faithful historians who are thoroughly familiar with the issues do not accept the interpretations and conclusions of the would-be destroyers of faith. I have not entered the argument over any of the specific issues. My point is simpler than that: Competent historians who have devoted many years of study to the issues have not felt compelled to abandon their faith in the restored gospel.

Are our expectations realistic?

May I reminisce just a little? The year was 1979. Leonard Arrington and I had just published a one-volume history of the church entitled The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints…

During that euphoric time, Leonard and I attended autograph parties, were interviewed, and gave quite a few talks. In an interview for Sunstone, we were asked to describe the relationship between faith and history. Here is Leonard Arrington’s response:

I have never felt any conflict between maintaining my faith and writing historical truth. If one sticks to historical truth that shouldn’t damage his faith in any way. The Lord doesn’t require us to believe anything that’s untrue. My long interest in Mormon history (I’ve been working in it for 33 years) has only served to build my testimony of the gospel and I find the same thing happening to other Latter-day Saint historians as well.

My own answer went like this:

What’s potentially damaging or challenging to faith depends entirely, I think, on one’s expectations, and not necessarily history. Any kind of experience can be shattering to faith if the expectation is such that one is not prepared for the experience. . . . A person can be converted to the Church in a distant part of the globe and have great pictures of Salt Lake City, the temple looming large in the center of the city….

…Only in the Doctrine and Covenants course is some historical background sometimes included, and even there the emphasis is on the spiritual and doctrinal content. Finally, at present (and for the past few years), priesthood and Relief Society classes devote a year of study to one of the presidents of the church. Some historical background is provided, but once again the emphasis is on the doctrinal teachings. The message that comes across to me loud and clear from lesson manuals and missionary lessons is simple. Our testimony is not in the history of the church.

So our eager anti-Mormon comes to us with his version of Mormon history. He has probably picked up his example from other anti-Mormons. He is pretty sure his Latter-day Saint neighbor will not know about it. His eyes are bright with anticipation. “Gotcha! What do you say to that! In view of that, how can you possibly be a Mormon.” If he doesn’t say these things, he implies them.

Here is where the faithful Latter-day Saint should take the wind out of the sails of the critic. Instead of collapsing with a wail of distress, the church member smiles and shrugs his or her shoulders and says things like this: “Hmm. I wonder if that’s true.” “That isn’t part of my religion. I have never heard it taught in any of the classes and have not read it in any of our manuals.” “You know what? That probably interests you a lot more than it does me.” “I haven’t heard what might be said on the other side. But what I do know is that I don’t have a testimony of the history of the church.”

Some of us might deplore the fading of church history from the curriculum. In the meantime, of course, you can still read on your own, individually or in study groups. To my knowledge, no one is forbidding such study.

Admittedly, knowledge of church history is not essential to our eternal salvation. But I do think it is natural and very satisfying to learn as much as we can about it. We study history, any history, as part of our human quest for self-understanding. As I read about the Latter-day Saints and their activities in the past as well as the present, I can be inspired, amused, bewildered, surprised, proud—and sometimes a little ashamed. More often than not, I am amazed at the perseverance, the tenacity, the determination to stay the course through good times and bad. Without even trying, I instinctively identify with the Saints. Imperfect as they were and are, the Latter-day Saints are my people. But my testimony is not in them, and I hope theirs is not in me.

Brigham Young once made a statement about Joseph Smith that our enemies smack their lips over. How they love to misuse it! Here is what Brother Brigham said:

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against “Joe Smith,” saying, “that he was a mean man, a liar, moneydigger, gambler, and a whore-master”; and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor’s wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it.11

What do you think Brother Brigham meant? Was he giving carte blanche to church members, saying that it didn’t matter how they behaved? Was he here giving his true feelings about Joseph Smith and actually describing him? If President Young’s meaning isn’t obvious, let me paraphrase it: The truth of the gospel and the divinity of Joseph Smith’s calling as prophet of the restoration do not depend on his behavior as a human being and do not require perfection in his life.

Did Brigham really think that Joseph was a moral reprobate? That is the way some brilliant anti-Mormons use this quotation. Ridiculous. Listen to this: “Who can justly say aught against Joseph Smith? I was as well acquainted with him, as any man. I do not believe that his father and mother knew him any better than I did. I do not think that a man lives on the earth that knew him any better than I did; and I am bold to say that, Jesus Christ excepted, no better man ever lived or does live upon this earth. I am his witness.”12 But—and this is an important truth—President Young did not want his testimony to center on Joseph Smith as a person.

Let’s consider a statement by President George Q. Cannon: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. . . . Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.”13

I do not have a testimony of church history. In this declaration, I join Nephi, who said: “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 4:34).

Notes

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Sandy, Utah, 5 August 2004 (see http://www.fair-lds.org). Used by permission. Also published in Meridian Magazine Online (see http://www.ldsmag.com). Used by permission. Copyright 2004 Davis Bitton.

“An Interview with Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton,” Sunstone, July-August 1979, 41.
“Think Not When You Gather to Zion,” Hymns (1948), no. 21.
See Isaiah Berlin, The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas (London: Murray, 1990).
Leopold von Ranke, The History of the Popes, Their Church and State and Especially of Their Conflicts with Protestantism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, trans.

Thoughts on The Mormon Faith Crisis by Blogger Jenny Hatch

August 2, 2013Jenny Marie Hatch Leave a comment

Kimberly, one of my favorite writers at Feminist Mormon Housewives, waxed truly eloquent recently on the topic of the Mormon Faith Crisis, which was the focus of a New York Times religion piece last week.

Although I am the queen of Anti Feminism, I appreciate the thoughtful ideas that are so often shared at FMH.

Kimberly really nailed the topic with her post, located HERE.

Quote from her post:

“Shh. Mormons are not supposed to have faith transitions or a full blown faith crisis. Or, if we do, we should keep it to ourselves, suffer in silence, pretty much isolate ourselves so we don’t contaminate the other members who are doing this the right way.”

I was one of the first commenters:

Jenny Hatch says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:45 am

As I read this excellent post, I thought of a dear friend who is a convert to the church.

She was baptized and active for about a year, then when the pressure from fundamentalist christian friends to leave the church combined with the overwhelming realities of the many, many demands and changes in lifestyle that were being required as a new member overwhelmed her heart, she left our ward in sheer panic and told the leadership that if anyone in the form of missionaries, visiting or home teachers….anyone came to her home she was going to call the police.

She and I had become friends and were close neighbors during the ten years that she was hostile and in exile from the circle of saints. We spent time in each others homes and would bump into each other at the grocery store.

I was always teaching classes on essential oils, nutrition, and baking in my home and would invite her to these events.

She credits me with teaching her how to make bread and get into whole foods cooking and I credit her with the open heartedness to give the saints a second chance.

When she moved across town to another ward she felt better about giving the church a second chance, getting active, and trying once again to “be a mormon”.

Once in a while she would call me in a panic, not understanding certain terminology, expectations, or assumptions.

As an example, she did not want her home teacher to visit because her home business of caring for the disabled meant that she had a group of people living with her who had various physical and mental challenges. Sometimes these people were upset when strangers would show up and it would take her hours to calm them down.

She wanted to know if she would be disfellowshipped if she refused to let them in. I told her to call the bishop and tell her home teacher to “bug off”. I told her that in no way was she a bad mormon or her membership in question if she was not comfortable with any part or portion of our lifestyle and infrastructure, especially if it affected her in such an uncomfortable way.

She told me later that this conversation was the one that helped her relax and feel like she could “be an active mormon”. She had wanted to participate her whole life but truly believed she had to be perfect in order to get baptized. Then when she felt like she was “good enough” to be baptized she was so overwhelmed by how much MORE was expected of her that she was spooked and ran away for ten years.

She was also homeschooling when she was first baptized in our ward and heard some of the sisters at Relief Society gossping about a homeschooling family in our midst in a very insulting way. She wondered if her choice to homeschool would also qualify her for extreme judgement and derision.

I personally applaud anyone who is having a faith crisis, because it indeed is an opportunity to grow, deepen our faith, and move a step or even a jump closer to our Heavenly Father.

Sometimes a step back can help us refocus our view, ask really great questions, and then take yet another leap of faith.

Jenny Hatch

Someone responded to my post thusly:

Sharon says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Seriously. This sister could have been “home taught” at another location and received the blessing and support of that association. Telling him to “bug off” was not, in my opinion, the best counsel. It sounds more like YOUR issue with home teachers than hers. Had she even explained the situation to her home teachers and given them the chance to offer other options for visiting with her? Did she tell the Visiting Teachers to “bug off” as well?

And in reply I said:

Jenny Hatch says:
July 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm

Yes, she did not want anyone from the church disturbing her unique living situation with unplanned visits. When she called me that time, several members of the ward had shown up without calling ahead and she was getting frantic.

I don’t have any issues with home and visiting teaching and applaud my friend in her evolution from wanting to call the police and get restraining orders to the level of telling them to “bug off”.

It was her own sense of boundaries being violated by pushy members that made her want to bolt from the church in the first place.

Learning that she had some autonomy over how much she engaged with her ward family gave her the courage to be in the circle, albeit in a different way than you might think appropriate.

My guess is, over time, she will “get a testimony” of visiting and home teaching and fully enjoy all of the many blessings tied to those programs.

I just did not want her to believe that she was a “bad mormon” for not wanting to participate when taking her first baby steps back into activity.

Jenny

I really enjoyed the New York Times article hosted HERE.

And the Radio Show with the author of that piece as well as Kimberly and a few others hosted HERE.

Faith Crises over the ages have ushered into the world the finest Religions, Books, Plays, Music, Philosophy and we should never be afraid when an individual experiences the soul shatering fissure that precedes a quantum maturing leap to another spiritual plateau.

My own Faith Crises have brought about some of the most compelling and sacred interactions with My Heavenly Father, who is always willing and waiting to meet us in the valley of the shadow of doubt.

Jenny Hatch

The Paul and Jenny Hatch Family at the Nauvoo Temple 2003

Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Jeffrey R Hollands most compelling sermon on The Faith Crisis:

Master Singers Fathers Day Concert

June 17, 2013Jenny Marie Hatch Leave a comment

Paul sings with a wonderful group of Men called The Master Singers. They held a series of concerts over the weekend, with the final Fathers Day performance at The Heritage Center in Cedar City Utah last night. It was such an amazing event. I was pleased that Paul was asked to give the opening prayer.