#62285 - Sac. Mtg. with kids

[Katya]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/62285/

Random thoughts:

I don't understand why Earplugs' wife is so set against him sitting in a different room with the audio piped in. That seems like a good compromise, to me.

I thought Claudio made a good point that kids (even ones who are too little to be quiet all the time) deserve the chance to be in Sacrament Meeting, too.

Of course, I've never really been bothered by kids in Sacrament Meeting, because I generally find Sacrament Meeting dead boring and the kids are fun to watch.

Any thoughts?

[Dragon Lady]

Wow, I'm glad you posted that. I hadn't seen Claudio's answer and I REALLY like it. Kudos, Claudio. He really presented some points that I don't think most people think of.

[Imogen]

when i go to mass, our church has a room at the back that is encased in glass for the moms or dads who need to take out a crying kid. mass doesn't get interrupted and the parent and child can still see and hear the priest and take part in the mass. i think it's a good compromise.

[Katya]

Imogen - Are kids expected to attend mass from a very young age? Are there mass sessions that are more or less likely to have kids in them?

[andruid]

I guess I am going to have to disagree with what has been said. In fact, I registered just for this purpose. I am very much trying to hide my frustration, but I fear I will fail.

I have been a board reader since before there was even an online presence. From time to time, a comment such as Claudio's catches my eye. Not because of his reasoning, but because of his delivery. I'm not sure this is the right place for this comment, but seeing as the sacrament meeting topic was what triggered this response, it'll have to do. There have been many board writers accused, over time of being haughty, self-righteous or downright rude. It makes me very sad. I think this is one occasion where that accusation would be legitimate.

If I were the writer of the question, I would not feel as if I was taken at all seriously, but rather, had a personal attack placed upon me. I don't think the question was how to best approach removing children from Sacrament meeting. However, Claudio defended their presence with great vigor. I think he's right. There is no reason to remove them. His arguments are certainly valid. Think, though, for a moment of someone who is spiritually weak, and needs some helping hands and uplifting thoughts. Would you see Claudio's response as being fit for that duty?

Being a writer for the board exposes you to a great audience. The things that are said are taken to heart by a lot of people. It saddens me that his judgments and prescriptions are so insensitive. The majority of the board writers are great. They provide a wonderful service, and should be regarded as such. However, this does not give them the liberty to be so careless. I don't care if you've done it for 10 years and you're tired of all the inane questions, there is a certain duty that ought to be respected.

[Imogen]

Imogen - Are kids expected to attend mass from a very young age? Are there mass sessions that are more or less likely to have kids in them?

The great thing about mass is that most churches have several during the day starting saturday evening. (well really it's everyday, but sunday mass is different from everyday mass) early sundays will have more kids. some churches have a special liturgy of the word for kids so that they can hear the readings and talk about them, but they're always in the sanctuary for communion. some don't. most have nurseries for newborns, but most toddlers are expected to be in mass with their adult chaperon.

i generally like to go early on sundays because i'm more awake. i'll either go to the local cathedral (which has a special liturgy for the kids under 13 led by mary christmas! (that's her married name. she CHOSE to be mary christmas. how cool is that?!)), or to st. patrick's around the corner because they're the most traditional churches. there are always kids and they cry, and i live with it because i know i'll be in that same situation one day when i have kids of my own.

i get more annoyed with adults who are on their phones or dressed inappropriately at church. that bothers me WAY more than a baby crying or a kid chattering. they always make me smile.

[Dragon Lady]

And though I can see andruid's point, I don't think Claudio wrote that because he was tired of all the inane questions. I think it's something he feels passionately about now that he has another perspective. He said himself that he used to be in the same shoes as the OP. He's not trying to be high and mighty and snobbishly calling the OP a sinner, but rather is saying, "Look, I totally understand where you're coming from. I was in your exact same position before I had kids. I hated the noise those kids made in sacrament. But guess what? Now I have another perspective that you don't yet have. And let me tell you what I learned about it. I learned that I was wrong. I learned that I had to repent of my ways because I was being unChristlike. So learn it from me now. Don't take as long as I took to figure it out."

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Andruid,

Not only writers, but readers also have a large audience, and what Earplugs are Next wrote was actually pretty offensive to some people. Me included. Can readers be held to the same standards of civility?

[Digit]

Here's some good background music by which to read both the post and responses.

[andruid]

Waldorf and Sauron,

As you well know, writers/editors have the latitude to censor and restrict that which is posted on the site. If it was really that offensive, wouldn't you think those powers would've been exercised? I guess I am just confused why a person reaching out for help would be so disdainfully handled. If I recall, the reader didn't indicate that kids are bad, we should exclude them, etc. Only that he/she has a difficult time with the sounds they inevitably generate. I agree they could've adopted a more forgiving tone; but offensive?

Also, I don't mean to be critical of you; you've been around for a long time and I've always appreciated your contributions.

[Marduk]

that bothers me WAY more than a baby crying or a kid chattering. they always make me smile.

Smiling at children crying?! I'm shocked, Imogen. Don't you find the least bit of pity in their plight? I can't believe you would be so callous.

Oh wait, I'm supposed to use one of these things to indicate sarcasm, right?

amidoinitrite?

[krebscout]

That kind of looks like you.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Andruid,

From my experience, censorship is very rarely exercised, either for readers or writers. The kind of "offensive" things that are censored are generally graphic in nature. Offensive viewpoints and tone are generally fair game. Moreso for readers than writers—editors and writers can't really tell a reader to "tone it down," but they do occasionally tell a writer to do so. (Worth noting here is that Claudio isn't a writer anymore, so his comment was subject to a simple approve/disapprove).

I'm not really going to take a stand on whether I approve of Claudio's answer. It could have been nicer. But the question, and the sentiment behind it, ticked me off too.

I don't think it was really offensive toward children, but rather to parents. I felt that the asker was dismissing them as lazy and inconsiderate. As a parent let me tell you, there are few moments in parenting that are as stressful as sacrament meeting. Taking out children when they get noisy simply doesn't teach them to be quiet. We know they're distracting—and it is very hard for us to make our neighbors go through it. But us not making noise in church means either we don't bring our children into the chapel at all, or we don't come to church. We come anyway, even though we very self-consciously know we annoy some people.

[Imogen]

that bothers me WAY more than a baby crying or a kid chattering. they always make me smile.

Smiling at children crying?! I'm shocked, Imogen. Don't you find the least bit of pity in their plight? I can't believe you would be so callous.

Oh wait, I'm supposed to use one of these things to indicate sarcasm, right?

amidoinitrite?

i know. i am evil. evil to the core of my black, black, pointy heart.

i just love kids and babies! everything they do makes me smile!

[Paperback_Writer]

I know it's been a while, but I just wanted to check in with y'all!

I think that both the question and Claudio's answer could be taken offensively if they're read that way. Sometimes I read something that at first comes across that way. But I know that a majority of things that are written are not meant to be offensive. I suggest that everyone try reading both the question and answer again without looking to be offended and then see how much of a difference it makes. Just knowing that the writer didn't mean offense changes things a lot with the tone. I think that both sides are right- the asker wasn't saying he doesn't like babies or thinks kids are bad, just that the noises can be distracting sometimes and was asking how to overcome those distractions and be able to feel the spirit in Sacrament meeting. And Claudio had some good insight into those feelings and put a lot of things into perspective. I know Claudio was just trying to help the reader understand better. So try reading them with neutrality in mind and you'll be surprised how un-offensive they may come across the second time

[NerdGirl]

I know it's been a while, but I just wanted to check in with y'all!

I think that both the question and Claudio's answer could be taken offensively if they're read that way. Sometimes I read something that at first comes across that way. But I know that a majority of things that are written are not meant to be offensive. I suggest that everyone try reading both the question and answer again without looking to be offended and then see how much of a difference it makes. Just knowing that the writer didn't mean offense changes things a lot with the tone. I think that both sides are right- the asker wasn't saying he doesn't like babies or thinks kids are bad, just that the noises can be distracting sometimes and was asking how to overcome those distractions and be able to feel the spirit in Sacrament meeting. And Claudio had some good insight into those feelings and put a lot of things into perspective. I know Claudio was just trying to help the reader understand better. So try reading them with neutrality in mind and you'll be surprised how un-offensive they may come across the second time

This. When i feel offended by something someone says, I try to remind myself that they were not trying to offend me. And I thought Claudio's answer was pretty insightful. He was giving the asker a new way to think about the problem (a problem which really doesn't have a good solution) based on his personal experience.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

No offense, but you are stupid.
(Just Kidding)

I don't believe intent (stated, perceived, or unperceived) is always relevant when it comes to evaluating a statement's offensiveness. Nor is it a good defense to blame the offended.

For individuals trying to not to be offended by something, I think these are good strategies—think of other ways they might have meant it, realize we have control over whether we are offended, and try not to nitpick.

[Dragon Lady]

I think that people should also not go around assuming that people are trying to be offensive. Especially on the Board.

[thebigcheese]

Yes, it's generally better to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[wired]

No offense, but you are stupid.
(Just Kidding)

I don't believe intent (stated, perceived, or unperceived) is always relevant when it comes to evaluating a statement's offensiveness. Nor is it a good defense to blame the offended.

For individuals trying to not to be offended by something, I think these are good strategies—think of other ways they might have meant it, realize we have control over whether we are offended, and try not to nitpick.

+1. When receiving a message, be as forgiving as possible. When evaluating a message, be as neutral as possible. When sending a message, be as cautious as possible.