MamaSheep
-
Posts
4,105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by MamaSheep
-
-
One suggestion I've seen for neatening up math is to turn lined notebook paper sideways and use the columns formed by the lines to help get the numbers in the right "place".
-
I remember Donna Young having math paper like that too. If you have a word processing program you could probably make your own by setting up an empty table with however many squares you want.
-
I think I tried to state this before but I didn't elaborate. Most of the questions in this thread look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity so many ideas are interpreted differently.
Jews say they were chosen by G-d to receive his laws and therefore are compelled to follow them. That's really it. Chosen doesn't really mean better or more important in any way. It's like when a child is given a special piece of jewelry by a parent and they wear it proudly. It's that feeling of pride and honor. It really has nothing to do with what other siblings received and there may not even be any others. (OK my analogy is going off the tracks a bit). To be honest Jews don't walk around calling themselves "the chosen people" (although my personal experience is in the Reform denomination). I've heard non-Jews mentioning it more and often mis-interpreting the meaning.
The messiah concept is similarly misunderstood. I went through 9 years of religious school and probably thousands of services and did not even know Judaism had a messiah concept until I had to write a paper on it in high school confirmation class. This idea, hand in hand with the concept of salvation, is central to Christian teachings. Judaism has completely different teachings and concepts. There is no sin in terms of salvation. To Jews it is a story about a person who will usher in an era of peace. Some Orthodox take it literally and to most of the other movements (denominations) it's a nice idea to be studied but has little to do with daily life.
My list of questions definitely look at Judaism from a Christian perspective. I did that on purpose because of the angle from which the original question was asked. And also because I am a (LDS) Christian and know more about the Christian perspective(s) than the Jewish one(s). But I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear, and I will say now that I recognize that a lot of the rhetorical questions I posed don't really compute from the perspective of Judaism.
You're right, many ideas are definitely interpreted differently in Judaism than in Christianity. And in different branches of each. And this thread has definitely been a very Christian-oriented one. I think it's also fair to say that both Christianity (in general) and Judaism (in general) have evolved even farther apart over the years since their original parting of ways.
I agree with you about what being chosen means, btw (assuming I understood you correctly). I don't think you can read the scriptural histories without realizing that being God's "chosen people" is not a reward for services rendered or a guarantee of ease, plenty, peace, and enlightenment. From either a Jewish or a Christian perspective.
-
I am so sorry for your loss, and pain and confusion. Your post goes right to my heart. Since the fall of 2011 both of my parents-in-law have passed away, as well as my grandfather. After 10 years (this time around) of hoping and waiting and making medical decisions, and trying unsuccessfully to adopt (nobody wants to give a child to a family where there is already a special needs child), we had three unexpected pregnancies between January 2012 and January 2013. All three ended in miscarriage. The day after this past Christmas I had a hemorrhagic stroke, shortly followed by the third miscarriage, which had to be surgically completed. It was discovered in the process that I have not one, but two genetic blood disorders that interact badly with pregnancy hormones, and it has been emphasized to me by my primary care physician, two OB/GYN doctors, my neurosurgeon, my hematologist, and various assorted other medical professionals, that having blown a hole in my brain once, it would be the utmost height of foolish deathwish-ness to ever attempt a pregnancy ever, ever again. Ever. And I have two children and a husband who need me here.
I know that everyone reacts differently to sad, painful, hard things that happen in life, and I want to be clear here that I am NOT telling you how you "should" react. And I certainly do not intend to minimize what you are going through. Every scrap of pain and anger and confusion you feel is real, and legitimate, and valid. Heaven knows I have had my own recent bouts of all of those things. I'm not going to say, "I know how you feel," because anyone who has been even close knows that I don't. I can't. There is no possible freaking way that another person could. And when people say they do, you just want to slap their silly faces off. At least, if you're me you do. (But I know they mean well and try to take it the way they mean it.)
But I think I would like to share a few thoughts about what my experience has been like, just to add another perspective. I would ask that people respond somewhat gently if at all, as all of this is still very tender for me, and I really don't feel like arguing about any of it or having to defend my beliefs on this right now, in this context. (I would be okay with it if someone wanted to start a different thread to ask general questions about my general religious beliefs. I'm just not up to nit-picking the deeply personal applications of it in these areas right now. Thank you for understanding.)For me, my faith has been a great help and comfort, and I have deeply appreciated the divine presence and concern that I have sensed through all of this. I think that part of it, for me, is that I come at it from an LDS perspective, which someone else described briefly earlier in the thread, and which includes a pre-mortal life, a mortal life, and a post-mortal life. To me, the babies I miscarried were full, complete spirit-people long before they were ever conceived. To me, they are real, living people who are waiting as eagerly for a reunion as I am. I believe wholeheartedly in the resurrection of mankind, and I have received divine assurance that they are MY babies, and will be MY children forever, that I will hold them, and raise them, and know them, and laugh and cry and play with them, and that in the eternity ahead of us our separation will seem brief, even though it seems so overwhelmingly massive right now. I have felt divine assurance that three (or possibly four--I think one of the pregnancies might have been twins, but it ended so soon...) of my children are safe, and well, and happy, and are watched over and loved not only by God, but by their grandparents and great-grandparents and other family members and friends who are there with them. They are not afraid, they are not alone, they are not hurting. And I will see them and know them when it is time. I don't have to worry that they will struggle with addictions, or abusive relationships, or hunger, or homelessness, or cruelty of any kind. They are okay. I believe this, and I believe I have experienced direct confirmation from God that this is so. I find that confirmation deeply comforting, and the source of much hope and peace.
To me, my in-laws and my grandfather (and my other friends and family who have passed) are also real, living people. They happen not to have bodies right now, and they happen to be in closer communication and association with each other than with those of us who are still mortal. But I kind of have fun wondering what my grandfather and my father-in-law, who never knew each other in life, might have to say to one another now that they are no longer old and ill. They are both quite the characters, and neither of them is much for pulling punches! I can just imagine my grandmother and mother-in-law (who both have opinions of their own!) trying to moderate their discussions. And to me, they are all still very much alive and with us, we just don't see or hear them right now. It IS legitimately difficult and painful for those of us left behind (for now). It's really been hard for dh and his brother not to have their parents here. But FIL wasn't really himself without his wife, and they are together now, and dh finds that very comforting. And when we're finished here, we'll join them all, and we'll have a nice long reminisce together. This, I believe. And again, although I miss these people who are important in my life, I truly don't believe that this life is all there is. I believe it is a brief intermission between an eternity before, and an eternity after, and I believe our relationships will continue, and because of the atonement and resurrection of Christ we will all be literally and physically together again relatively soon (relatively from an eternal perspective, though perhaps not from my current perspective as a mortal being). And that being the case, I cannot see death as a permanent situation, or as the ultimate tragedy. Which, I think, also gives me peace and hope.
But yes, another aspect to my belief is that God is omnipotent. I believe very deeply that God could have cured my in-laws' cancer; could have made my grandpa live forever (although I have to admit that as mortals go, 95 is a pretty good run, and he was ready to go, and it would have been pretty selfish of me to make him stick around just because *I* would miss him); could have kept my babies' hearts beating and caused them to develop into full-term, healthy children whom I could have hugged and kissed and taught and learned from and watched grow up and get married and have their own babies; could have cured my son's autism; could have prevented or repaired the genetic mutations that cause my blood not to function properly, and the physical problems that cause my infertility. Did God cause those things to happen, or just allow them to happen? I don't know, and I don't see that it makes much difference. I think that if God created a system in which "stuff" can "just happen" that will then be "allowed", when God could have created a system in which nothing bad ever happened, then He is still the cause of the "stuff" that "just happened" within the system. And if God couldn't create a system in which nothing bad ever happened, then He's not actually omnipotent. But I believe God IS omnipotent, which leaves me with God caused it all--the cancer, the genetic mutations, the miscarriages--all of it--either directly or by setting up a system in which they could "just happen".
And then...I also believe that God is not only all-knowing, but all-wise. This being the case, I believe that God knows pain, and anger, and sorrow, and fear, and frustration, and loneliness, and desperation. I believe that Christ suffered all of those things during his mortal incarnation, some of it naturally as part of his mortal experience, and some of it "supernaturally" during His atonement, when he descended below all things. But I believe that the Father knew those things even before that, before the world was created. I believe that God knows those things (and more) on a level we probably are not even capable of comprehending. And knowing them, he still created a world in which they can exist. I have to ask myself why. Which leads me to what are we here for? What is the purpose of life? I think that when God looks at the mortal experience He has given His children, God doesn't see it as something that was ever intended to be a pleasant, peaceful, restful vacation where every wish is granted, the sun always shines (unless we really want rain), and nobody is ever the least bit uncomfortable. I think if he had wanted to make such a creation he could have--but honestly, it seems a little bland and pointless to me. In the end, what would it really accomplish? And I think that the notion that God manipulates people by making "good" things happen only to people who are "good enough" or say the "right" prayer, and granting all their wishes while bad things happen to everyone else in order to make bad people want to be good--well, let's just say I don't buy it. I don't think God is so insecure that he needs to "purchase" our approval or worship by granting wishes, and I don't think God is petty. And I think that if God really wanted to just choose some people to put in heaven and let the others wind up in hell, then it would have made a lot more sense just to put them there in the first place--I'm not really sure what the point of a mortal phase of existence even is in that scenario. (But I do understand that other people have other views on all of this, and I respect their right to believe as they choose).
I believe that an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful God intentionally created a system in which pain, and anger, and sorrow and fear, and loneliness, and horror, and all of those things that we struggle with can exist--and so can pleasure, forgiveness, and joy, and love, and community, and effulgence, and triumph, and all the wonderful, delightful, amazing parts of life. But I don't think He did it for his own entertainment, or because he doesn't care about us. I think it was to teach us, and to show us who we really are, underneath it all, at the core of ourselves. I think we need to experience both the "wonderful" things and the "terrible" things in order to really understand either. I'm not sure heaven would really be heaven if we didn't understand what "joy" and "love" and "peace" really are, and I don't think we understand those unless we also understand "sorrow" and "abandonment", and "chaos", at least at some level. I don't know that I believe God directly steps in and causes each and every individual thing that ever happens to us, good or bad (though I'm convinced that He sometimes does intervene in a very direct, personal, and immediate manner). I do think some stuff "just happens" as part of the system in which we're living--a system which I think God created according to divinely instituted physical and moral laws, ultimately for our own good, even though it's hard and scary and painful.
My husband, too, would step in and die himself to save one of our children. I'm sure he wished at times he could do that during the miscarriages. He is a devoted and loving father. But he and I both agree that wrapping our kids in bubble wrap and making sure that nothing bad ever happened to them (if that were even possible) would not be good for them. It would stunt their development and keep them infants forever. They will learn to be capable adults by falling down, and dropping things, and bleeding, and sticking pins in themselves, and getting muddy, and coping with other children who are throwing wood chips at the playground and knocking other kids down, and learning to forgive themselves and others and get on with life, and climbing up things that are too high, and doing things that frighten them...and all that hard, painful stuff. We don't sit on the sidelines and laugh, and we're not gazing off in some other direction because we've lost interest, we're just allowing them to have the experiences that will grow them and teach them. And when they bleed, and cry, and break, we hold them, and comfort them, and show them how to get through it. Sometimes we even create learning experiences for them (like home school) and insist that they complete their learning tasks even when they become angry or cry over the lessons. I really believe that God is doing that on a much larger, grander, eternal scale that we don't really understand. And yes, some things that we have to do, or face, or live through make us angry, and confused, and resentful and we don't understand how God could make us do it. But that's how my son feels about fractions. He's sure they were invented just to torture children. And it's how my daughter feels about reading (but she's getting better at it with practice!).
And one of the reasons I believe this is that I can look back at this point in my life at things that I've experienced, and that I've watched others experience (and the list I gave earlier is not the only stuff I'm talking about, it's just some of the recent "big" stuff), and I can see how those things have changed me, and shaped me, and taught me. I can see that I am stronger, and more compassionate, more mature, and that I SEE things differently, and understand the real value of things differently (but not yet fully, I can tell) having had those experiences than I would be if I had not. I can SEE some of the change points, and some of the connections, and even some of the reasons. I can see how the lessons learned are becoming increasingly useful (even fractions) and are opening doors to further lessons still (many of them not as painful to learn, because I see things I would not have seen before due to past "lessons"). And that strengthens my belief in a loving God who really does have my best interests at heart even when it doesn't seem that way to me as a "child". And it brings me peace, and comfort, and hope that I will continue to see more reasons, and become more "adult" in an eternal sense, as time goes on.
And I believe that I have experienced God's presence during those difficult, painful, angry times in some very profound ways. And that presence has been sympathetic, and supportive, and comforting, and has "held" me close and really understood, in ways that nobody else could, what I am going through. I have experienced flashes of insight, and feelings of peace that I know did not come from inside me. And even during the times I have wept, and screamed, and figuratively kicked God in the shins and beat my little child-fists against him, and told him I hated him, and it was NOT FAIR, and I could NOT DO IT, and how could he give me this only to take it away again, I have felt that He understood, and cared for me deeply, and accepted my feelings, and would not hold it against me, and that he would give me answers when it was time, and there would be a time, and it would eventually all make sense, and when I am grown up I'll "get it" in ways I don't see now. And for me, having God with me in the painful, angry times has been a beautiful, comforting, faith-affirming thing.
But that's where I am NOW, not where I have always been. And I know that this is just MY experience, not everyone's. (And I don't know why that is. I certainly don't think it's because I'm "better" somehow than people who have a different experience, or that God loves me more. And again, I'm not saying that this is how other people "should" experience the hard times, or how I have ALWAYS experienced hard times, just how it's been for me at this stage in my life.). For me, my faith and my God have been profoundly "good" and helpful in dealing with the deaths of loved ones. I feel like what I have gained is eternal, and what I have lost is temporary. HARD. Very, very hard. Very, very sad. I miss them terribly. But still, only temporary.
But that's not where you are. You are somewhere else in your journey, and that's okay. You are where you need to be, asking questions you need to ask, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I just thought I'd share another perspective in case it helped someone in some way. For some people, like me, the idea of God being with me in this situation is a comfort, and that's probably why people say things like that. For some people, like you, it's not comforting, and I'm sorry. I hope that you are able to find peace and hope somewhere, though. Give it time. For what it's worth (and I know it's probably not much), I will be thinking of you. -
Our dog does that with my ds16, even when he's bathed and shampooed recently. If he flops with his head in a particular spot on the couch she seems to take it as an invitation to groom him. He laughs and kind of appreciates the attention, I think, but always goes and washes his hair again afterward. He also has his hair quite short and I've wondered if that's why she does that with him and not the rest of the family. But after reading this thread I'm starting to wonder if there's something about that teen boy smell that triggers the grooming instincts of family pets.
-
Lisa, my dad (the biologist) sent me a link to this article a while back, and for some reason it came to mind with regards to this discussion. It's from a Scientific American and has to do with scientific questioning, not religious questioning, (although I am not really convinced there's actually a difference between the two when it comes to questions--methods for finding answers, yes, but questions...not so much) but I thought you might relate to some of it. :)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-science-wants-to-kno -
...
Valid point. At the same time, if we can assume with a measure of confidence that tsunamis are not the result of Poseidon unleashing his army against man, that Odin didn't defeat the Ice Giants, thus saving mankind, can we not similarly assume that Jesus didn't invite a community of undead to descend upon Jerusalem to convert unbelievers? If we can dismiss the fantastic claims of one religious story, why not dismiss the fantastic claims of another just because it happens to be familiar to us? I understand not dismissing it if we're personally invested in that religious belief, but the OP is asking how to gain knowledge outside the parameters of accepting things on faith.
......
???? Reference for this story about Jesus? I can't interpret what you might be referring to with this one. I'm familiar with the story of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones, but not something similar with Jesus. I don't think Lazarus equates to a "community of the undead." As for Poseidon, I can certainly understand and honor Poseidon as the energy inherent in the sea and storm, beyond the ability of man to control, operating according to its own parameters, able to be a source of life and livelihood, but also to be incredibly destructive. My knowledge of geology and fluid dynamics does not interfere with that, nor does the fact that I don't see a giant man with a trident in a chariot pulled by hippocampi every time I go to the beach. ;)...
My guess is that she was referring to Matthew 27:52-53 :
"52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." -
This is a genuine question...no traps, I promise. I do have to leave for a while, but I'll be back to participate. I just wanted to post the question during a time when many were likely to see it. Our family identifies as Christian, although we don't currently attend church. My husband was raised Catholic, but he isn't "practicing." I was raised Methodist. We don't actually identify with any specific denomination. That was just background info about us. Not sure it really has anything to do with my question, but I thought I'd give full disclosure.
Now to the question. My 17yo actually asked it, and I have no answer. I tried to google, but only came up with some pretty extreme fundamentalist sites which weren't helpful to me. So, where better to turn than the Hive?
So, she asked this: If, according to the Bible, the Jewish people are God's chosen people, and, if, Jesus is, indeed, God's son, come to save us, then why, with the exception of the Jewish people who are Messianic, do they not believe this to be so? In other words, if Jesus is God's son, and the Jewish people are His chosen people, wouldn't He have taken great pains to see to it that they understood this to be true?
Understand that I'm not disputing whether the Jewish people are God's chosen. If one is using the Bible as one's source, that fact is clear. The problem she's having is why God would allow His chosen to misunderstand who Jesus is, if, in fact, He is God's son. I have no answer.
If I haven't explained this well, please let me know how to clarify. Any and all input is welcome. I realize this is likely a charged topic, and my intent is to seek to understand. I am not trying to start discord.
As I said, I do have to leave soon and will be gone for a while, but I'll be back to participate. I sincerely appreciate anyone's thoughts on this topic. :)
I don't have as much time for the forum as I would like, so I'm a little late to the party, but have been reading through this thread with interest.
I hesitate to throw more questions into the mix than you are already dealing with, but going back to your original question, it seems to me that there has been quite a bit of discussion about the "if Jesus is God's son" part, but not so much about the "if the Jewish people are God's chosen people part". You assert this to be a clear fact, using the Bible as one's source, and I completely agree with you there. But I think you may be glossing a little bit over the question of what it means to be "God's chosen people". This is another aspect of your question that different religious groups will look at differently, and which might have some bearing on the answer to the question of why would God "allow His chosen to misunderstand who Jesus is.." What does it mean to be "chosen" in this context? Chosen for what? With what result? And with what expectations?
I think it might also be helpful for you to explore a little along the lines of who the modern Jews are, and what relation they have to the historical Jews we read about in the Bible. The group(s) of people who currently identify as Jewish are not the only descendants of the original "chosen people". As others have pointed out, the first Christians WERE Jews, and many of the current Christians are descended from them. They no longer call themselves Jews, but they are a branch off that tree of "chosen people".
But let's look further back for a moment in history as presented in the Bible, just for the sake of exploring this question. In a rough outline, God made a covenant with Abraham. Abraham had a son named Isaac, who had a son named Jacob, who was later renamed Israel. Israel had twelve sons (one of whom was named Judah), and their descendants became the "Tribes of Israel", the family of each son being a "tribe". Again, this is a rough outline, as there were some complications, like one son who was basically disowned and the two sons of Joseph (who was sold into Egypt) being recognized as two separate tribes. At any rate, these were the "Tribes of Israel" who were led out of Egypt by Moses, to whom God gave the ten commandments and the set of laws that came to be known as the Law of Moses, which was added on to the covenant with Abraham, which was still in effect. After the Israelites settled in their promised land, each tribe was given their own geographical "inheritance" that was their own tribal territory. They were governed by a series of judges for a while, and then petitioned God for their own king. David was put in place as king over the nation of Israel, which incorporated the people who were the "tribes" of Israel as a single nation. Solomon inherited the throne from David. However, the succession became problematic after Solomon, and the nation was split into two separate countries. The northern kingdom was called "Israel" and was ruled by a king named Jeroboam who was from the tribe of Ephraim (one of the two sons of Joseph). The southern kingdom was named Judah because it was primarily comprised of the tribe of Judah (but did contain people from other tribes as well, in particular Simeon and Benjamin, I believe, as well as most of the Levites, who served in the temple in Jerusalem, which was in Judah and had been largely expelled from Israel by Jeroboam--again, oversimplifying a bit), and it was ruled over by Rehaboam, who was a son of King Solomon. Later in history, the northern kingdom, Israel, were conquered and "carried off into captivity" by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom Juday, even later, was conquered by the Babylonians, and its people taken captive. The Babylonian king later allowed some of the people of Judah to return to their land and re-establish their worship in the temple at Jerusalem. The fate of the people of Israel, the northern kingdom, is more or less lost to history, though my understanding is that it is generally assumed that they were absorbed into the Assyrian empire and probably spread out from there. The people who were known as "Jews" at the time of the New Testament were descendants from the people of the kingdom of Judah who had returned from the Babylonian exile and re-established the kingdom, and then had later been conquered by the Roman Empire. And modern Jews are the physical and/or religious descendants of this group.
So who would God have considered to be His "chosen people" at the time of the New Testament?
Would it have been only those who identified themselves as "Jews", ethnically and religiously?
Would it have been only a particular branch of that group with the most correct religious understanding and practice?
When those who were ethnically Jewish and had been religiously Jewish identified as "Christians" (by whatever term they used to describe themselves at the time--"believers", "saints", whatever) and split away from the "Jews", did they cease to be part of God's "chosen people"?
Would the "chosen people" have included those in the general population who were descended from the inhabitants of the northern kingdom of Israel, but who had been integrated into Assyrian society, then conquered by the Babylonians, and the Persians, and the Greeks, and the Romans, and whoever else, and no longer KNEW they were descendants of the "chosen people"? Did those tribes cease to be "chosen" when they were taken into captivity? When they ceased to follow the "Jewish" religious practice? What makes a "chosen person" no longer "chosen"?
And along those lines, perhaps sending the gospel to the "Gentiles" WAS God's way of making sure it was available to all of His "chosen people", and of gathering up ALL of His "sheep", even the ones who no longer remembered there even was any such thing.
But it depends a bit on what is meant by the term "chosen people". Which probably bears some exploring in relation to your original question.
Also, I know you have a lot of resources and links and book recommendations, but I would like to add that it might be a good idea to thoroughly study the actual Bible, Old Testament and New, in addition to learning what all those people think about the Bible. Scholars and theologians and members of various Christian faiths will all be helpful in developing your own understanding of what the Bible teaches, but if you rely predominantly or solely on their scholarly opinions it's a little like wondering what is inside a box you're carrying around, and going around asking opinions of everyone you know, but not actually looking inside the box for yourself. I think you should look in the box.
-
-
Ice cream is nice sometimes in the summer, but honestly it can make my teeth hurt and it makes me feel sluggish after I eat it. So I have to go with donuts.
-
I live in Utah, where the church I no longer attend is headquartered. As I said earlier, modesty is harped on in a ridiculous fashion (ha!) and girls/women are told that their bodies must be covered so they won't "become p0rn." The men are told to stay away from p0rn. There are support groups run by the church for "p0rn addiction." At every general conference (held twice a year for the worldwide membership) there is at least one talk about p0rn, which may also talk about (female) modesty. There is also likely to be a talk focused on modesty and/or sexual "purity."
I was born and raised in this church and it was only very recently that I saw how damaging and misguided these teachings about modesty and sexuality are. There is so much shame about the human body and sexuality. That may not be the desired result (teachings are generally couched in terms of "respecting your body as a temple"), but in practice the shame response is very, very common.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way is that modesty is taught in a balanced manner along with a wide variety of other topics, but if a person is hyper-focused on a particular topic, sometimes that's all they hear, and they miss the bigger picture, including the context in which that topic is being discussed (for example, by overemphasizing one out-of-context tangential remark made at the end of one talk about pornography).
I was born and raised in the same church, and have found the teachings about modesty and sexuality to be healthy and validating, and to promote self-esteem, respect for members of the opposite sex, and a joyful approach to sexuality and procreation. I would say that teachings are often presented in terms of "respecting your body as a temple" (I suppose you're referring to my post on the other thread there) because the church does, in fact, view the human body in positive, healthy terms and sexuality as something beautiful and personal, but that unfortunately some individuals in the church do superimpose a veneer of shame, and it's sad that this is the case because those who do so entirely miss out on some of the most beautiful philosophical, intellectual, social, and relational teachings the church has to offer. But we are all in different stages of learning in different areas of knowledge, and we each have our own perspectives on various topics. As has been pointed out frequently, the church is more of a hospital for broken people than it is a retirement home for perfect ones.
I appreciate that your views on, and experiences with the church are different from mine. I hope you will also respect that many people's views and experiences are different from yours.
-
No, I wouldn't have said anything either. I think that how people dress is their own business (except for my own kids, whom I have a responsibility to educate about such things). I have been known to discreetly point out an obvious wardrobe malfunction or two, like someone with a big tag hanging out the back of their shirt or a piece of toilet paper that was clinging to the back of a skirt, but only because I thought the person would want to know to spare them embarrassment. Under the circumstances described I'd probably assume it was a swimsuit and cover-up, but even if it was obviously a dress and bra, some girls dress that way these days, and I don't really see how someone would just not realize that the entire racer back of their bra was visible (that's not just accidental neckline slippage), so I would assume it was an intentional fashion statement and mind my own business.
-
I'm not entirely convinced there IS a counter in my kitchen at present. P'raps I should go do something about that.
Authorized residents of my counter:
Kitchen Aid Mixer
Food processor
Grain mill
Utensil holder
Knife block
Toaster oven
Bread box
Cookie jar
(seriously overflowing) catch-all basket
My microwave is on a separate cart parked next to the counter. I have a number of other appliances tucked away in various cupboards and pantry shelves, but I have been feeling the urge to reorganize the whole mess. Y'know....as soon as I finish these other twenty seven things that need doing. Sigh...
-
See - I told you I'd get it wrong and insult everyone :p
Lol!
And I'd say that the LDS one would be "families are forever". But I don't think "be prepared" is particularly insulting, just not really the focus. :)
-
According to new research, states that consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption. You can read the latest article here.
...
Interestingly, Utah stands out (and has for years) as by far the most busy porn watching state.
That was an interesting article. This bit caught my eye:
"The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says."
I grew up in Montana and now live in Utah and find this fascinating. But having experienced both cultures first hand for long periods I have to say that I don't think this data can be accurately interpreted to mean that Montanans have less of an interest in pornography than Utahns, or even that they actually consume less porn. I think the difference is more likely to be a matter of how and where those people in each population who consume porn actually get their porn. Especially since the study only deals with online pornography subscriptions, not total consumption of pornography and related forms of adult entertainment.
Growing up in Montana, most of the kids I knew had easy access to pornography if they wanted it. They would go over to each other's houses and watch their parents' video collections. They knew whose parents had a magazine stash and where, and a lot of the parents didn't care if their kids got into it as long as they put everything back. I had a number of male friends whose sex-education from their parents consisted largely of being handed a stack of magazines by their fathers, and being told not to put it in anything they wouldn't marry. They laughed about this on the school bus. Playboy and a couple of other soft porn mags were available on the front rack at the local drug store, right next to the spinny rack with the comic books. There wasn't a strip club or adult movie theater in our town, it was too small to support them, but everyone knew where to go for that sort of entertainment, and on a number of occasions I heard men I knew discussing in rather loud, lewd terms who their favorite entertainers were, both in print and in person. In Montana you kind of had to make an effort in order to NOT have regular exposure to various levels of pornography. I was that weird Mormon girl who quietly got up and left when they started passing it around and oohing and aahing and giggling, and who preferred PG rated movies. Nowadays my only FB friends who occasionally post photos of women that I consider somewhat exploitative are the ones from my Montana youth. I cannot imagine they've gotten more prudish there over the years. But I can imagine that they don't feel a need to go online to get their porn since there are so many other options for easy access.
In Utah, on the other hand, I couldn't even tell you where the nearest strip club or adult movie theater is, and I've lived here for a decade now. I don't think I've ever seen a soft core magazine casually displayed on a magazine rack (though I'm sure they must be out there, I just don't go to the "right" stores). The women I know don't tend to complain about their husbands' stashes (which is something I heard more than once in Montana), and I've never heard men's casual conversation include their personal porn rating systems. If I wanted to find pornography in Utah it would take a little effort--probably it's not that hard to come by, but it's not as much a part of the culture as it was in Montana and it's not as thoroughly "present" if that makes sense. It's also not something that is culturally acceptable to do or to talk about like it was in Montana, so it makes sense to me that the people in Utah who wanted to access pornography and participate in a more "adult-oriented" culture than is available around them would be more likely to do so online because it's easier and more private than other locally available retail options. And another consideration in interpreting the data is the fact that the demographic that consumes the most pornography in general tends to be teens and young adults, and I would guess that Utah has a higher population density in this demographic than Montana. And I would guess that there are similar societal/cultural factors in other states as well that would affect the outcome of this particular study.
It also occurs to me to wonder what the difference in internet access between the two populations in general might be, as well as the general computer literacy rate, and whether that affects the nubmers. But that's probably yet another ball of wax.
Anyway, it is an interesting study, and should certainly be considered as part of the picture in answering the original poster's question, but it definitely doesn't tell the whole story.
-
I agree that it's a little bit of a leap.
Then again, it's also a bit of a leap to suggest that everyone who employs the term "modesty" thinks the human body is shameful, sex is shameful, that all men are fundamentally sexual predators, and that women are responsible for what men think, and that it's the way women dress that causes them to be raped. It's certainly "easier" to set up these false dualities, to polarize the issues into black and white extreme caricaturizations so you can set up straw men and then knock them down and dance on their pyres, but it doesn't accomplish anything useful. Issues of sexuality in society are a lot more nuanced than that, and I think both "sides" of the "modesty" issue would be surprised how much they agree upon if they would quit misrepresenting each other's positions and actually discuss the real issues calmly and civilly. I think it's too bad that we seem unable to do that here. One reason I have appreciated this forum so much in the past is that people here had seemed so willing to really discuss things instead of engaging in these silly tar and feather sessions. It makes me sad that this is no longer generally the case.
-
I agree that it's a little bit of a leap.
Then again, it's also a bit of a leap to suggest that everyone who employs the term "modesty" thinks the human body is shameful, sex is shameful, that all men are fundamentally sexual predators, and that women are responsible for what men think, and that it's the way women dress that causes them to be raped. It's certainly "easier" to set up these false dualities, to polarize the issues into black and white extreme caricaturizations so you can set up straw men and then knock them down and dance on their pyres, but it doesn't accomplish anything useful. Issues of sexuality in society are a lot more nuanced than that, and I think both "sides" of the "modesty" issue would be surprised how much they agree upon if they would quit misrepresenting each other's positions and actually discuss the real issues calmly and civilly. I think it's too bad that we seem unable to do that here. One reason I have appreciated this forum so much in the past is that people here had seemed so willing to really discuss things instead of engaging in these silly tar and feather sessions. It makes me sad that this is no longer generally the case.
-
Has anyone else notice a correlation between extreme modesty and s3*ual addiction problems in men?
I have several friends in uber conservative churches, and their sons have really struggled with p0rn0graphy. Many, many many of them. Like, I can't think of one grown boy whose mom hasn't mentioned it as a BIG issue.
In addition, several of the men that I know who grew up in similar extremely modest homes have the same issue - marriage ruining p0rn addiction.
On the other hand, I don't hear of or see the same struggles from my friends with less strict homes.
I'm sure this isn't black & white, but I'm wondering if anyone else has seen something similar in their community.
To me, "extreme modesty" is a contradiction in terms. By definition modesty involves avoiding extremes. The word "modesty" is a near relative to "moderate" and "moderation", and the mathematical "mode". If attitudes about dress become extreme, they are by definition no longer modest.
But I do think that an extreme focus on the body as primarily a sexual object bears a correlation with pornography and sexual addiction (and not just in men). Whether that focus manifests as obsessive exhibition/voyeurism of the body, or manifests as obsessive covering/avoidance of, the body, it's the same extreme focus on sensuality, and either way it objectifies and dehumanizes both the men and the women involved. And neither of these extreme manifestations of sexual obsessiveness is something I would consider "modesty".
-
One thing that genuinely puzzles me is why modesty is so often discussed as a female-only issue, and/or as applying primarily to people in a particular age range. After growing up being taught that modesty is for boys as much as girls, for children, teens, and adults, I sometimes have a hard time figuring out how to participate in a conversation that approaches modesty as something that WOMEN do or don't do because of its effects on men. It's kind of a foreign concept to me.
I mean, yes, to some extent the way we dress does influence the way others view us and treat us. For example, I have IEP meetings for both of my kids with professionals at the school, and I help run an autism themed parents' support group. In both of these venues I have noticed that people act and speak to me differently when I am dressed in "professional" clothing and have my hair and make-up done than they do on the occasions when I dash in wearing jeans with my hair stuffed in a ponytail and no make-up on. Actually, I frequently dress "down" for the parent meetings intentionally because often the parents just really need to talk very informally to someone they feel can relate to them, and dressing in a very "professional" manner seems to present somewhat of a barrier to that. Our school district representative who so kindly attends on her own time without getting paid for it dresses more professionally, and this helps people feel like she really does have the clout to help them in navigating the challenges that come up at school. It can be a subtle thing, but it's definitely real.
And the way we outwardly present our sexuality (and we are all sexual beings, and we all present our sexuality to the world in SOME way because it's part of who we are), also really does influence other people. I think it's a bit naive to think it doesn't, or even that it shouldn't. It's nice to have clues about what's going on in a person's head. They're useful. And I do think that it's just courteous for women and girls to dress, speak, and behave in ways that are not sexually aggressive toward men, AND for men to dress, speak, and act in ways that are not sexually aggressive toward women. In my opinion it shows respect for both sexes as complete human beings with skills, hobbies, opinions, knowledge, sense of humor, food preferences, etc., and not just as physical commodities.
But the fact that the way we speak, behave, and dress has some influence on what other people think about us and how they behave toward us does not make us RESPONSIBLE for what other people think or how they act. A person, male or female, can certainly choose to redirect their own thoughts and to choose their own behavior. Women are not responsible for what men think about them--but they do have some power to influence that (at least with rational, reasonable, regular men; predators are a whole other ball of wax), and they should use that power responsibly. Similarly, men are not responsible for what women think about them, but they do have some power of influence and they should use that power responsibly too. In other words, I do think that I am responsible for how I choose to intentionally exert influence on other people, and how I choose to respond to their attempts to influence me (just because they offer an invitation, that doesn't mean I have to accept). I don't think that I am responsible for the choices other people make about responding to my influence (I can persuade, but they still make the choice), or about how they choose to attempt to influence others.
I like that my church teaches modesty for both males and females, and not just for teens. I particularly like that modesty is taught not just as a mode of dress and grooming, but as an attitude that is expressed in our clothing choices and personal hygiene, AND also in our behavior and the way we speak. And I like that for my church "modesty" is not just about "sex", it's about showing respect, and having enough humility to share the spotlight, and not being offensive just for attention, and valuing your own body. I also like that the church offers general guidelines for modest dress, behavior, and language, so that we can all be more or less on the same page within that community. I think having objective guidelines (that still leave a great deal of room for a very wide range of personal taste and expression and take into account differences in circumstances and activities) reduces arguments about whose personal, subjective preferences are "right" and whose are "wrong" and blah blah blah (doesn't eliminate them, of course, people being people and all, but I think it helps prune it down a bit). People can still choose whether to adopt those standards personally, or not, but this way at least they are aware of what the community standards are and they know how they will be perceived and can make a conscious choice about it instead of inadvertently stumbling around giving people an unintentional impression one way or the other.
For me, personally, modest dress has a lot to do with the fact that I view my body as a temple. In the Biblical model for a temple, in the portable tabernacle and the permanent temples built in Jerusalem, there were differing levels of access. Anyone could view the walls of the temple from the outside. The people could congregate in the main courtyard. The inner area, the "Holy Place" had a more controlled level of access (mostly priests, I think, but it's been a while since I studied specifics), and only the high priest was granted access to the innermost sanctum, the "Holy of Holies". To me, the manner in which I dress is a similar controlling of access. Certain of my "bits" are accessible to the general public. I only grant access to other bits to those who also consider those bits and their uses to be sacred. And the most intimate forms of contact with my body are reserved for one person of my own choosing who is willing to live a sort of "priestly" lifestyle, so to speak. So the way I choose to dress is in a way a religious offering. And yes, I am aware that there are personal and cultural differences in what other people with think about which "bits" of me I put on public display. But I can't control what they think. Some people, I'm sure, stood outside the temple wall in Jerusalem and thought all sorts of inappropriate things about the temple. Some people even saw the temple as a challenge to the extent that they assaulted it, tore down the walls, and profaned the Holy of Holies. (Which was not the Temple's fault, btw.) There are going to be some people who see modest dress as a sexual challenge. There are some people who only see bodies as sexual objects, and not as temples (some of these will respond by flaunting their body and ogling the bodies of others; some will respond by obsessively covering their bodies and avoiding any glimpse of the bodies of others). I can't help that. I don't have any control over their thoughts and attitudes. I can still continue to worship as I choose, including in my manner of dress and my attitude toward my own body (and the bodies of others, which I also consider sacred as well as utilitarian). And yes, I understand that other people are operating from other paradigms, and that's their business, not mine.
Anyway....maybe a little more religious content than you were looking for. But for me, modest dress is one expression of my personal religious views. I don't expect the same expression from people with different religious views.
-
Another function of Relief Society (which I didn't see mentioned, but may have missed, as I was just skimming) is "Visiting Teaching". This is a program in which each woman in the ward is assigned two visiting teachers, who are supposed to check in once a month to give a short gospel message and check with the woman in the home to see if the family needs anything (like food, money for mortgage or utilities, help with yard work, etc.) and if so, to put them in touch with the appropriate administrators. Visiting teachers are also presumed to be sort of "on call" if there's an unexpected need, like a ride to the ER, or someone to watch the kids while mom goes to rescue dad because his car won't start in the parking lot at work, or whatever. Or if you just need a shoulder to cry on. When I had my stroke at the beginning of the year my visiting teachers came to see me in the hospital the morning after (we went to the ER in the middle of the night) and had meals lined up for a couple of weeks before dinnertime. They offered to watch my kids while dh came to sit with me, and even offered to substitute teach for homeschool (but ds is old enough and independent enough that it wasn't needed). A nice Relief Society sister from the ward whose boundaries include the hospital came by on Sunday morning (because I had indicated LDS as my religious preference on hospital intake paperwork) to see if I would like a brief lesson, and she also arranged for a couple of young men to swing by and administer the sacrament (communion) to me, which was really nice. The meals kept coming for another week or two (I forget) after I was home again. Dh had to go out of town for a work obligation the week after I came home, and the RS offered to have a rotation of ladies come sit with me in case I needed help (and I did), but my sister was able to come stay with me instead that week so I didn't need them. It was awfully nice to know my family would be taken care of even if dsis hadn't been able to come, though.
-
Thanks for the encouragement. I like the monsters too, I think dh did a good job with them. If you don't have kids at that stage, it would be a great help if you told friends who do have younger kids about it. :)
-
I haven't read all the replies so I'm sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said. And I don't really follow any Mormon blogs, so I may be off in left field from what you're looking for. But here's two cents from me.
As far as how it's taught in church, I think the "how it's taught" part often depends a lot on the individual teacher. I think sometimes well-meaning people just say things in awkward ways that give wrong impressions. Particularly when those people were raised in families that don't ever talk about sexuality, or who do so only with a sense of embarrassment or shame--they've just never been taught how to talk about sex, so they stumble. We all have our shortcomings. But "how it's taught in church" is sometimes a little different from "what the church teaches", if you see what I mean. I think this is one reason it's so important to know the church's actual teachings, and to make sure we are teaching our kids what the church teaches at home, and letting the lessons at church be supplemental to what they're learning at home, rather than vice versa. (Which is one thing the church teaches. ;) ) One of my goals is that my kids will be familiar enough with actual church teachings that when a teacher expresses personal views that they THINK are doctrinal, but they're really not, my kids will know the difference. (Am I succeeding? We'll see, I guess.) So that's part of how I teach my kids about modest dress--making sure that my kids understand it well enough not to be dragged off track by some well-meaning teacher who's barking up a skewed tree.
And I think that applies to the whole "big picture" of the gospel. In my opinion, there are a lot of different nuances encapsulated in the idea of modest dress and behavior. I think that a broad, deep understanding of the gospel as a whole can help give perspective to any individual teaching because the different gospel principles all tie into each other, and the better you see how something fits with the whole, the more sense it makes. But we learn in bits and pieces, here a little, there a little, and sometimes we get only partial information, or we don't see how something like skirt length fits with making and keeping covenants, or honesty, or whatever. I think one part of teaching modesty to our kids is to try to make sure they have a well-rounded religious education in general, and to help them make the connections between one part of the gospel and another so it's not just a stack of isolated pieces of information to them.
And I think it's just as important to teach modesty to the boys as it is to the girls. Modesty is not a gender-specific value. And I'm not talking about teaching boys to look for modest girls to date and marry, either (though I think we should teach them that too). I'm talking about teaching them to dress in a manner that demonstrates that they have reverence for God, appreciation for their parents, respect for themselves as complete human beings worthy of courtesy and regard, a cognizance of both the seriousness and the preciousness of procreation and family, esteem for their current or future spouse, and consideration for other people they come into contact with. It's not really about how much skin is showing, or how tight the clothing is, or how the patterns and designs of the clothing lead the eye to certain body bits. Those are easily visible, definable details, and they're PART of the bigger picture. But the details don't tell the whole story. Modesty is really about the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is for boys every bit as much as it is for girls.
I also don't see modesty as an age-specific value. It's either important or it isn't, it doesn't suddenly become important when we have a certain birthday, or when puberty sets in, or when we want to quit fooling around and find someone to settle down with and marry. But I do think in some ways it's a skill that is learned over time, kind of like eating with a fork. Nobody cares if a baby stuffs food in its mouth two-fisted, and nobody cares if a baby is running around in nothing but a diaper. We don't fuss at little children when they use their fingers to help the food get into their mouths (but we might remind them to use their forks), and we don't pitch fits when little girls sit with their feet up and we can see their pretty undies, or little boys run around the house in their shorts (but we might remind them to put their feet down or put on pants). Expectations for table manners should be age- and ability-appropriate, and it would be counterproductive to hyperventilate every time a child "stumbles" while they're learning, but we don't just let a child eat with their hands until they turn six or eight, or start looking for a spouse, and then introduce them to forks and spoons. We let them start practicing as soon as they're coordinated enough with the expectation that they will come as close to adult-level functioning as they reasonably can and continue to work on their skills, improving all the time until they can function at an adult level. To me, modesty, is much the same in some ways. Expectations should be age appropriate, and there's no sense hyperventilating about "stumbles" along the way while they're learning, but I teach them how and help them practice, and I expect them to perform at the highest skill level they can realistically manage, with the intent that they will function at an adult level as soon as they have developed enough skill. I don't wait until they're six or eight or starting to date before I introduce them to the concept and let them start practicing.
One way I look at it is that we are a covenant family. My husband and I knelt across from each other, and joined hands atop the altar of God, in the house of God, and as equal partners we made solemn promises to each other, and to God. Our children were born in the covenant, and we will raise them in the covenant to the best of our ability. It is our heartfelt desire that our children will grow in knowledge and faith, and when they are ready they will enter into their own covenants with God, and experience the same joy those covenants have brought us. Our family culture is oriented around maintaining that covenant relationship with God, and with each other, and that being the case, our family culture includes the consistent living of a temple-worthy lifestyle, as a family. My kids will have a chance to choose whether to make covenants or not, but when that choice is in front of them I want a covenant relationship with God to be a continuation of what they're already doing, not a major lifestyle shift that will require great effort on their part to suddenly have to figure out how to manage.
Another aspect of this is that I don't view commandments from God as random, arbitrary hoops that he makes us jump through just to see if we'll jump when he says jump. I view them as instructions for how to lead a life that will bring peace and joy, even in the midst of hardship, and how to gain the knowledge and growth that is part of our eternal development. As such I don't see them as restrictions, so much as I see them as safety-rails, sign posts, and maps. I want to teach my children to walk on the "strait and narrow" path because I think it will bring them the greatest growth and the greatest joy, and I want all the best things for them. If I have the map, if I know what a safety-rail and a warning sign are for, why they're there, and how to recognize them, why wouldn't I teach those things to my children as soon as they are old enough to understand? And why would I not keep them on the path with me when they are too little to understand? I don't think it would be kind of me to allow them the "freedom" to fall in a thorn patch or walk into a fast-flowing river just because they are too little to understand the danger.
Anyway. I'm just kind of rambling. And I guess all that has to do with the "when" part of your question. As for the "how" part...
I guess one thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is the idea of the body as a temple. In my head this is related to a concept of circles of social intimacy that was taught in one of the seminars I went to about raising kids with autism. The idea there was that you draw sort of a target-like image with several concentric rings. The outermost ring consists of strangers; these are people you interact with mostly on an impersonal, professional level. It is not usually appropriate to share personal information with people in this group. The next ring in are people who are casual acquaintances, co-workers, people you see around the neighborhood. Appropriate social interactions with them would generally be sort of small-talk level stuff like, "Hi! How are ya? Nice weather we're having." Maybe a handshake. "Nice to see you again. How're the kids?". More personal, but definitely not intimate. The next circle toward the center is your family and friends. These are people you might hug when you see them, and ask about details of things going on in their lives. At appropriate times you can tell them about your troubles and ask for their help or advice with a pretty solid level of expectation that they love you and have your best interests in mind, and will help if they can. The next level in is people you are in a close, loving relationship with; people you can tell your innermost secrets to. This might be your parents, a girlfriend or boyfriend, a spouse when you have one that sort of thing. These are your most intimate loved ones. The innermost circle is just you. It's okay for there to be things that you just keep private, to yourself, and don't talk about with anyone. This is the deepest level of intimacy on the circles of intimacy chart. (I would personally allow God in the inner circle as well--you can tell God anything, and you never have to feel all, all alone--but this was in a secular setting).
Anyway, this is one of the things that comes to mind for me when teaching about modesty and sexuality (which are really two separate, but overlapping, subjects). And as I said, I see it in relation to the concept of our bodies as temples. There are different "levels" of access to temples. Anyone can come to the temple grounds and enjoy the beautiful flowers and the sweet, peaceful spirit there. Braver souls might venture to the lobby. Someone with a "limited use" recommend can participate in baptisms for the dead. Only full temple recommend holders can participate in other temple ordinances. Only endowed members enter the celestial room. In ancient temples, there was an outer court, and inner court, and a holy of holies. Different people had different levels of access, but only the high priest could enter the holy of holies. If our bodies are like temples, there are different levels of access. There is a level at which we are more or less available to anyone. But there is also a holy of holies, both in our bodies and in our souls, to which we grant access only to those who understand the sacredness of the access they are being given, and who are willing to make solemn vows with regard to the relationship. The way we dress and behave helps regulate access, kind of like the walls, and the grounds, and the recommend desk help regulate access to the temple.
I do think that it's important to teach modesty and chastity in context with the atonement, though. As I said, it's important to understand how things fit into the larger picture. Sometimes unfortunate things happen. Sometimes we do things that don't fit the covenant ideal. Sometimes things are done to us against our will. Sometimes it's unintentional, sometimes it's on purpose. It's not the end of the world. It doesn't make you worthless. You have so much worth to Christ that he suffered and died so that you aren't stuck in your mistakes. When a temple is vandalized (which does happen), or a pipe breaks and makes a mess, or whatever, the church doesn't burn it down and curse the ground it was built on and forbid anyone ever to set foot there again. The damage is quietly cleaned up, the temple is restored and rededicated, and temple business continues as if it never happened. The temple is no less holy, no less the house of God, no less beautiful and peaceful and filled with the Spirit. And when a person repents and is restored and rededicates their lives to God, if it's good enough for God it certainly ought to be good enough for any of us. That person is just as pure and chaste as if it had never happened. And our kids need to know that too. Not as permission to go do whatever they feel like doing in the moment, but so that they know if or when they make a mess (or if someone violates their trust) any damage done is not a permanent condition unless they choose for it to be.
And I notice from skimming a little that Xuzi made an excellent point about modesty being warped into yet another way to objectify women. (And men too, frankly.) I think that this is as much an issue of how sexuality is taught as it is an issue of how modesty is taught. But maybe teaching sexuality is not what you were asking about, and I've probably rambled on enough.
Anyway...it is something interesting to think through. I hope you find answers that work for you. :)
-
I have found that the more I study history and science, as well as other religious traditions, the more my faith deepens. I think it has helped me develop a more profound understanding of, and a greater appreciation for, both the details and the bigger picture of my religion.
-
The game was featured on the Geek Dad blog today: http://geekdad.com/2013/06/monster-mutants/
Dh is immensely proud. (It's kinda cute.) Still worried about the bottom line, though. Poor dh, trying to keep up with my curriculum habit. Sigh.
What do you call this type of notebook?
in K-8 Curriculum Board
Posted
Is there a way to upload pdf files here? If so, you could tell me what you want it to look like and I could make you a printable page or two.