Noisy kids in Sacrament

[Guest]

You're a self-proclaimed narcissist and narcissists don't like to lose arguments. Got that.

Oh that's why you have to win this one. Ok.

My point is that parents do not take enough responsibility to teach their children proper and civil behavior. That needs to happen by whatever means the parents choose. Turning up the mic as the only solution isn't teaching them anything. There will be some margin of learning where, yes, there will be some shooshing and some going in and out until they get the point. We need to give parents the courtesy and leeway of doing what they need to to teach their children until they learn, instead of getting all offended that they're not putting their attention 100% on you as you bear your testimony. As I said, turning up the mic is fine, but that doesn't take away the responsibility of the parents to teach their children reverence, and that needs to be emphasized in church way more than it is.

And my point is that in a ward like the one I'm talking about in Texas, the noise is not created by misbehaved kids. It's created by the natural reverent behavior of a jillion kids under 6. You seem to keep missing that.

And don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was OFFENDED by the twisting parents. I said, as a speaker, I WOULD RATHER the parents pay more attention to what I'm saying than them having to worry so much about their kids.

Are there parents that are not teaching their kids reverence? Yes. That's a given. My point is addressing the other side of that coin. That there are parents who get paranoid over their kids' behavior at church because of their self-consciousness towards their seatmates. Don't walk out of sacrament at the first sign of the baby cooing. He's just fine. Turn the mics up and these parents who are trying their hardest won't feel too paranoid.

I really wish I could show you the sacrament meeting in that ward in Texas. Complete eye-opener that. They need to turn up their mic.

Edited June 21, 2012 by anatess

[Vort]

Anyway, if they had to take the kids out everytime they make noises, you'd have half the meeting out on the hallway.

Not at all. You would indeed have the parents of the infants and very young children in the foyer (or, preferably, other designated holding pen), but with simple and consistent discipline as I suggested above, the other children would be tractable and reasonably reverent.

In the Catholic Cathedral, the ceilings are so high, the walls stone, the microphones booming. Children noises gets swallowed up in the cavernous place and the echo of the mic.

So, I'm thinking we can get the speakers heard by just setting the microphones to LOUD.

This won't work. As you note, Catholic cathedrals are massive, with very high ceilings. The acoustics are completely different from those of an LDS chapel. You would need to turn the speakers up to an ear-splitting level to drown out the crying kids in an undisciplined ward, giving our meetings all the charm and flavor of an inner-city Baptist revival. (Which may indeed be interesting, and even deafening, but cannot reasonably be called "reverent" in any sense.)

[Vort]

Okay, as a speaker... I bore my testimony over at that ward in Texas. Standing on the podium while mothers and fathers are twisting this and that shushing their kids, coming in and out of the room... it is very distracting. I would much rather that the adults pay attention to what I'm saying regardless of the activity of the kids.

Same thing. Microphone. Loud. Try it.

Disciplining the children, if done correctly, would take several months at most. Then the ward would be quiet and reverence would return, without having to deafen the audience.

I have never been a bishop, so I don't know what I'm talking about first-hand, but I would think that a creative bishop could help ameliorate this problem by talking privately with the offending families and giving very specific advice, phrasing it as a direct request rather than just a good idea.

[Vort]

From what I have read, Eowyn and I seem to see this situation almost exactly the same.

[Vort]

I know I already said this but in case it got lost in my long post. lol

I'm a big supporter of positive reinforcement as the only way to go. Bring a treat for after church and only for those that were good as a thank you. Not only will it change the behavior of others it will change your focus during the meeting. Look for the good, ignore the rest.

Positive reinforcement works just great on me. But I have rarely received it. I wish I understood it better and knew how to implement it. That said, the method I outlined previously has worked wonderfully for us, and does not involve explicit punishment.

[Guest]

I firmly believe that unruly and noisy children should be removed, inside and outside of church. That said, I don't mind or see anything wrong with parents giving young children a book or snack during Sacrament Meeting to hold them over. I remember when I was a tiny tike having LDS kiddie books to look through and snacks to munch on. By 8, when I was baptised, I knew what reverence was and I was able to sit during meetings without a fuss. Teaching your kids to sit still and listen is a gradual process. I think adults forget this.

I understand this and I know this may be a cultural thing, but if the Catholic children can last for one hour without snacks, LDS children can too. Eating at mass is considered very disrespectful. But, of course, I don't think it is considered that in LDS sacrament. The bishop in our ward always says before the closing song, "pick up your cheerios before you go so the singles ward won't have to worry about it sticking to their clothes". I didn't know this when the kids were little. So, I never did the snack.

[Bini]

I understand this and I know this may be a cultural thing, but if the Catholic children can last for one hour without snacks, LDS children can too. Eating at mass is considered very disrespectful. But, of course, I don't think it is considered that in LDS sacrament. The bishop in our ward always says before the closing song, "pick up your cheerios before you go so the singles ward won't have to worry about it sticking to their clothes". I didn't know this when the kids were little. So, I never did the snack.

Definitely a cultural thing. Speaking of culture, even reflecting back on how chaotic church was back in the Philippines is mind-blowing. For the most part, my family attended an expat ward but occasionally we had visitors attend and on rarer occasions we attended local wards - those times in Sacrament Meeting were loud and smelly! Kids ran around and were loud, entire families would sit around and eat (hint = smelly food!). It's just a different world in comparison to life here where I am, Utah. I'm sure you're able to relate to some of that.

[Guest]

Not at all. You would indeed have the parents of the infants and very young children in the foyer (or, preferably, other designated holding pen), but with simple and consistent discipline as I suggested above, the other children would be tractable and reasonably reverent.

Vort, I'm talking about this ward in Texas. There are about 30 kids in nursery! Plus the babies under nursery age... There are about 60 families... remember what you said about nursery age kids?

It's an amazing ward... only about 2 people I saw who are grandparent-age. Lots of pregnant women so I'm sure the nursery is not about to shrink in size anytime soon.

P.S. One thing that was super amazing... the ward building is set up like our ward where the RS room is on the other side of the hallway as the Primary room. When the Primary is singing, you can hear it straight across the hallway through the closed doors!

This won't work. As you note, Catholic cathedrals are massive, with very high ceilings. The acoustics are completely different from those of an LDS chapel. You would need to turn the speakers up to an ear-splitting level to drown out the crying kids in an undisciplined ward, giving our meetings all the charm and flavor of an inner-city Baptist revival. (Which may indeed be interesting, and even deafening, but cannot reasonably be called "reverent" in any sense.)

No, I'm not talking about un-disciplined kids. I'm talking about the ward in Texas. Reasonably reverent kids - still noisy. Lots of wards are like that. Our ward used to be that - well, not as big as the one in Texas but we had about 75 kids in primary - and sacrament meeting was noisy - okay, not as noisy as the one in Texas. But, it's not the hush of our ward now (our ward got split three times).

But you're right, the acoustics may not support the loud mics. I think the high cathedral ceilings contribute to the effect as well. Good point.

Edited June 21, 2012 by anatess

[Gwen]

Positive reinforcement works just great on me. But I have rarely received it. I wish I understood it better and knew how to implement it. That said, the method I outlined previously has worked wonderfully for us, and does not involve explicit punishment.

My comments were more for the op in what to do about other ppl's children. Rarely should you discipline a child that is not yours, however you are always welcome to compliment them.

I have no issues with what you outlined for your own child.

I'm in a branch where we have no foyer, mother's room, etc. Even if you leave the room everyone can hear you. The few other children at church come from families that are very new and to be blunt have few parenting skills as it is. They take the kids out and things are more disruptive than they were in the chapel. One time you could hear the mother spanking the child (I'm not totally against spanking but this got me ruffled). Everyone was looking around no one knew what to do. It gets to this point out of exhaustion, frustration and not knowing better. I've found that if I just offer to take the kid out for them then I can help teach the kid, parents get to stay in and get taught and reverence is maintained. I frequently have children sitting with me that are not my own.

[Daybreak79]

From what I have read, Eowyn and Vort have hit the nail on the head to the solution needed.

I live in the Daybreak area where our wards have had up to 500+ attending sacrament (no joke! Our Sacrament meetings have looked like what other areas have for Stake Conf.). And our primary kids have always out number the adults and we often had (4) nurseries with 12 to 18 kids each.

When the parents do as Eowyn and Vort have described the Sacrament meeting can be more enjoyable and reverent for everyone involved. I know we did the same thing with our daughter and now that she is 5 we don't have any issues and really haven't for about 3 years.

[annewandering]

When our kids were loud I took them out to the foyer. When I realized they liked that I made it not a happy playtime for them. We pretended we were in the chapel being reverent. I told them that since they were not reverent in the chapel that we would practice in the foyer where they didnt disturb people.

Once, Pres. Haight came to my brother's ward. My brothers family always sat in the front since his kids behaved better up there. Well one child, about 3, was being noisy. Elder Haight looked at my brother and told him that he would pause in his talk till my brother took the boy out so people could hear the talk. Then he quietly waited while they left the chapel. I always thought that would be incredibly embarrassing but it did make a good point. (my brother was actually pretty good at keeping the kid quiet by the way but kids are never going to always be quiet)

[Iggy]

Every single LDS building is equipped with electronic listening aids. I wear two hearing aids, thus the noise nearest me is picked up and amplified. Mommy shussing 20 month old is way louder than 20 month old saying Hi to the speaker.

The Listening device goes into just one ear- and the speaker has to talk INTO the microphone for it to work. At first our Branch President thought I was being a pain when I asked for one, Every Sunday. AND I kept it until the end of all the Blocks. Those sisters in RS insist on speaking in Temple Voices. They don't want to stand BEHIND the podium and use the microphone.

Well, guess what? I was not the only one who could not hear. Our Branch only had two of those devices. After 6 months of 12 of us Sisters and 8 of the Brothers asking for one, they now have 24. I could purchase one just for myself, they only cost under $100.00.

I will save up my soda pop bottles and use the refund money to purchase one. In the meantime just make sure the Librarian has it ready for me 15 minutes before start time.

anatess, I agree with you. Turn up the mic. I also say, Mommies cease with adding to the noise level with your shusses & stage whispered Quiets. Kiddo's aren't listening to you- they have long ago tuned you out. Put your finger over their little mouths AS you are removing them from the chapel. Take them ALL the way out side and into your car. They don't want to be in the Chapel, they want to be in Nursery PLAYING.

When I was in Primary, we took the disruptive children to Daddy. Why should we reward them by taking them to Mommy in RS and letting them disrupt RS. Mommy ignored them in Sacrament, she ignores them in RS. BUT Daddy makes them be quiet. There is the added plus of all of those dark suited UNCLES & GRANDPA figures glaring at you to cool your little jets and shushes 'em right up!

Our Chapel does not have bench pews, we have upholstered stacking chairs. The visitors we get are always surprised when they see this. THEIR primary aged children LOVE it, they get THEIR VERY OWN chair, with the added bonus of it being SOFT & WARM. In RS the mommies exclaim that their little ones have never been that quiet in their own home wards. Too bad our own toddlers aren't as happy and content to sit quietly. Also, the visitors put the adults between the kiddos. Come with 4 little ones, Mom and Dad don't sit at one end- they split the kids up. Wish the local mom & dads did that.

[Wingnut]

Every single LDS building is equipped with electronic listening aids.

Every single LDS building should have the capacity to have electronic listening aids, but not every building actually has that equipment in place and available for use.

[JesusParadox]

I sympathize with you, but parenting comes first. Your first duty is to teach your darling little barbarian to be civilized. Inevitably, that will mean that you miss out on some talks. This is an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of being a good parent.

Tell your child to cease being disruptive. If s/he does not respond immediately, take him/her out. Really, that is the only polite thing to do. It also happens to be the very best thing for your child, teaching him/her (as it does) that antisocial, disruptive behavior is not tolerated.

At 5 months and 18 months it is not a matter of being a good parent. They don't understand if you tell them not to do something. Try telling a 5 and 18 month old to be reverent. Any inconsistent discipline they will not understand, like doing something once a week. If you take them out, you are mainly doing it as a courtesy to other people.

[Vort]

At 5 months and 18 months it is not a matter of being a good parent. They don't understand if you tell them not to do something. Try telling a 5 and 18 month old to be reverent. Any inconsistent discipline they will not understand, like doing something once a week. If you take them out, you are mainly doing it as a courtesy to other people.

True, but as I wrote before, any child 18 months or younger is too young to be disciplined. You take them out and make them comfortable (though don't let them run around and play). And yes, it is a courtesy to everyone else. In this case, it's not so much being a good parent as being a polite person in society.

The social contract is this: While our children are small, we take them out of the chapel whenever needed, even though that means missing the meeting, so that others may enjoy the meeting uninterrupted. Then, for the rest of our lives, we get to enjoy the meeting uninterrupted while other parents of young children take their kids out so as not to disturb us and everyone else.

The alternative is: Parents don't bother to show politeness by taking their screaming kids out, the result being that no one ever gets to hear anything throughout their entire lives.

[JesusParadox]

True, but as I wrote before, any child 18 months or younger is too young to be disciplined. You take them out and make them comfortable (though don't let them run around and play). And yes, it is a courtesy to everyone else. In this case, it's not so much being a good parent as being a polite person in society.

The social contract is this: While our children are small, we take them out of the chapel whenever needed, even though that means missing the meeting, so that others may enjoy the meeting uninterrupted. Then, for the rest of our lives, we get to enjoy the meeting uninterrupted while other parents of young children take their kids out so as not to disturb us and everyone else.

The alternative is: Parents don't bother to show politeness by taking their screaming kids out, the result being that no one ever gets to hear anything throughout their entire lives.

When they are as little as mine there is nothing you can do, they will cry. If you wait patiently it will end shortly. The majority of the time what parents do in the hall they can do in the chapel. It is not about me being a polite person, rather people having patience. In addition, if people don't like babies crying they can relocate in the Chapel.

All it really sounds like, is you want me to be selfless, yet people don't want to be. Why should I be selfless and not you? It seems like a paradox... Then you think about, what causes more of a negative? You waiting patiently for the crying to pass or me walking out every time my baby cries?

[Vort]

When they are as little as mine there is nothing you can do, they will cry. If you wait patiently it will end shortly. The majority of the time what parents do in the hall they can do in the chapel. It is not about me being a polite person, rather people having patience. In addition, if people don't like babies crying they can relocate in the Chapel.

All it really sounds like, is you want me to be selfless, yet people don't want to be. Why should I be selfless and not you? It seems like a paradox...

Not sure I understand you. I was selfless (to use your wording): Every time my children were disruptive, I removed them from the chapel. If they were old enough to discipline, I disciplined them, as previously described. If they were not, I simply held them and comforted them. My wife and I did this for all five of our children. If we had had ten children, we would have done it for all ten.

So now it's your turn. How is that unfair?

Then you think about, what causes more of a negative? You waiting patiently for the crying to pass or me walking out every time my baby cries?

If you are quiet and polite about it and you know you're likely to need to leave, you can position yourself to leave with a minimum of disruption. A parent taking ten seconds to walk a noisy child to the chapel doors is much less disruptive than a parent taking thirty seconds or more to try to sush the kid or calm him down.

[Guest]

A child of 18 months is able to understand and learn a great deal more than a lot of parents realize. I remember when I was running a daycare in my home, I had a little girl that was about 18 months old. One day at pickup, her mother observed me asking her questions about what she wanted to drink, having her answer me, say please and thank you, and take care of her cup. She was shocked that her daughter could express a preference and understand manners.

They can learn, but it takes someone to teach them. The sooner you lead by example and teach by repetition, the better.

[annewandering]

When they are as little as mine there is nothing you can do, they will cry. If you wait patiently it will end shortly.

hmm my kids must all be very determined kids then. Some of them were quite willing, and capable, of being loud, noisy and fussy for some time. For at LEAST as long as a church meeting.

I had a rule of thumb for this. If they disturbed me enough that I could not pay attention to the talks they went out. And no I do not have a huge tolerance for distracting behaviour at church.

If disruptive behaviour bothered Elder Haight enough that he asked a child be taken out then I am not the only one.

Ok I will admit I am more tolerant of other people's kids. That is because I am NOT responsible for their kids behavior and I am for my own kid's behaviours.

[JesusParadox]

Not sure I understand you. I was selfless (to use your wording): Every time my children were disruptive, I removed them from the chapel. If they were old enough to discipline, I disciplined them, as previously described. If they were not, I simply held them and comforted them. My wife and I did this for all five of our children. If we had had ten children, we would have done it for all ten.

So now it's your turn. How is that unfair?

If you are quiet and polite about it and you know you're likely to need to leave, you can position yourself to leave with a minimum of disruption. A parent taking ten seconds to walk a noisy child to the chapel doors is much less disruptive than a parent taking thirty seconds or more to try to sush the kid or calm him down.

Thirty seconds, really what is the point in taking them out?

So basically people just take their kids out as a show. They are basically saying, "hey look I am trying, I am a good parent." I am not overly obsessed with my image, maybe that is why I don't take them out.

[annewandering]

Thirty seconds, really what is the point in taking them out?

So basically people just take their kids out as a show. They are basically saying, "hey look I am trying, I am a good parent." I am not overly obsessed with my image, maybe that is why I don't take them out.

Ok that is insulting. Am I to assume you think you are superior because you let your kids disturb everyone else?

[JesusParadox]

Ok that is insulting. Am I to assume you think you are superior because you let your kids disturb everyone else?

No I am just going against some BS cultural norm.

The disturbance is when the baby first cries. The only way you can prevent that is if you anticipate the cries. That is highly unlikely to happen. If that is the case, taking them out serves little purpose. Other then to waste your time and make you suffer in church. For what? 20 seconds of quietness? to show people you are trying? It just seems pointless to me, waste of time.

[Vort]

Thirty seconds, really what is the point in taking them out?

To be a good neighbor and a considerate fellow Saint.

Plus, you cannot tell whether it's really only going to be 30 seconds or whether it will stretch out into a ten-minute battle. If the child will not or cannot calm down immediately, better to take him out. Many is the Sunday I spent sitting in the foyer with a seemingly placid child because s/he could not be trusted not to start fussing loudly in the chapel. It's just part of parenting.

So basically people just take their kids out as a show. They are basically saying, "hey look I am trying, I am a good parent." I am not overly obsessed with my image, maybe that is why I don't take them out.

Not sure how you leapt to this conclusion. It's not a show, it's being considerate.

And as another who is not overly concerned with image, I suggest that people like us would do well to be at least a bit more image-conscious than we are. Not all politics are evil. Sometimes, it really is a matter of demonstrating to people that you care as much about their comfort as you do your own, even if it means doing something that you privately find unnecessary. There is a term for people who are utterly unconcerned with the opinions of others or how their actions affect those opinions: Autistic. It's not a desirable state of being.

[applepansy]

When my kids were little... just had two and the youngest wasn't a year old... we bought my grandparents home and moved into a ward that had NO Primary to speak of. I swear it felt like I had the only babies in Sacrament Meeting. I also felt that everyone was looking at my little noisy family and judging us. Then I got old and grey and realized that all those grandmothers were remembering the days when they had their handsfull of babies in Sacrament Meeting.

Back then I wouldn't be offended if someone handed me a bag with toys and goodies in it.

After my kids all were grown and somewhat "gone"... I missed having a baby sitting on my lap. I had to pay attention. LOL

Flash forward to today: I'm 54 with a 4yo again. And he's noisy. The YW like to sit behind us because he entertains everyone behind us at least 4 rows back. We made the mistake of sitting in the middle one Sunday when he was bout 2-1/2.... oh my. One brother made the mistake of winking at him. Then entire middle of the congregation were trying to so hard not laugh and it definitely wasn't quiet. My grandson was quietly making faces at everyone. LOL

Now we sit on the side and two young families have moved in. They each have a little boy my grandson's age... three blue-eyed, blonde Sunbeams with lots of energy. They are very entertaining to watch and talk to. We all sit on the side and jokingly call it the Sunbeam section. We also warn those who come sit by us. Fortunately we all have the same standards and are teaching these three boys in very similar ways. They are taken out if they are noisy.

The solution to a noisy Sacrament meeting is to talk with the Bishop. Their might not be anything you can do about it. Young kids will be noisy and a lot of young kids will make it noisier. Kids belong in Sacrament meeting. You don't teach them to be in Sacrament Meeting by sitting in the hall.

BTW: I haven't read the whole thread yet. LOL

[JesusParadox]

It comes down to the fact, I just can not grasp how it is such a disturbance. Then again, I have an ability to zone people out. I think that is conditioned from Basic Training though.

Anyways, I already decided, since it bothers so many, I will try to take them out. I will be selfless and let my Sacrament meeting be destroyed. As long as other people get spiritually nourished that is fine... I guess.