FHE: Peace at Home

In our family, we do a lot of arguing. Perhaps it is the same in your home too. Simple questions like who's turn is it to do the dishes? and which one of you kids ripped the space bar key off my computer? comprise two of the many arguments that happen in our neck of the woods. Writing this would be much easier if all the keys were intact, but is it worth debating about it?  Fighting and arguing drive families apart yet we engage in them constantly. Sometimes every day. From where we vacation this summer to who lost the keys, we have important points that need attention; and, hopefully through peace-promoting means. This article is meant to be framework for family discussion, such as might take place in a Family Home Evening. By the end each family member would hopefully understand the value in collaboration and family consensus.

Family Home Evenings are a formal time in our family where we talk, have fun, and associate with one another. It is a time and place where we discuss gospel topics and address needs the "fam" might have. As a general framework, we usually begin with a song and a prayer, before getting into the nitty-gritty. This invites the spirit and promotes unity. The song for my Family Home Evening (FHE) that I chose for arguing is called "Love At Home" which is found on page 294 of the LDS hymnal. A link can be found in the bibliography.

After the song, we like to have a prayer. My father would call on someone to offer it and then we begin. I was asked before hand to present this message to the family. Here we go. I elected to begin with this scripture from *The Book of Mormon:

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

-3 Nephi 11:29-30, The Book of Mormon

We do not want contention in our homes. It is destructive and ultimately all parties loose in the process. There are many thing that we do need to talk about and decide as families, but it should be done in a constructive manner. We need to build each other up. Sometimes we might need to compromise what we want to do for the sake of the whole. But does that mean we "lost?" Not at all. We are trying to aim for truth and achieve maximum efficiency.

In a *Ted Talk given in 2013, Daniel H Cohen argues that arguing isn't supposed to be about winning and loosing, but rather about coming to the truth. Want to see what he said? here:

So, It seems he has said that argument is not supposed to be a war form. It's not a martial arts form. It's beyond the scope of defending your pride and priorities. It may not even be a way for getting what you want from others. The paradigm he recommends is about coming to the truth, some truths are practical like which restaurant to go to and others are more grand like children deciding to go to church after leaving home.

Now for the nuts and bolts. How do you argue according to our new definition? I would recommend loosely following the process called parliamentary debate. This form of debate has many rules and proceedings, but for a family it should be simple and easy. 

Before a debate is began, there must be a resolution, or a topic, that the debate will revolve around. Then two parties are formed, one team will defend the resolution and the other will oppose it. Typically an impartial jury or judge will afterwords rate the teams based upon a pre-drafted rubric which I will show after explaining the format of a debate.

Let's say that a family has a resolution. It is "This family get a dog." Lots are thrown to randomly select teams (remember that a single family member or a few should be left out to judge and moderate.) Each team is given 5 minutes to prepare their side. Then the game begins and the affirmative side presents their arguments.They say that dogs have therapeutic effects, create responsibility, and are just fun. 

Then the opposition takes the floor. They enumerate their arguments against the resolution. Dogs are a lot of work and some people are allergic to animals, they argue. afterwords a short break is allowed for each team to give a rebuttal. The opposition goes again. They begin by saying that allergies out-weigh therapy, that the family doesn't want any more jobs around the house, and that there are other ways to have fun.

Then the affirmative side rebuts the opposition's arguments, replying that Allergies can be overcome by long exposure and that responsibility is the moral high road. Both sides have great arguments. Both teams have valid feelings on the mater. The Judges then fill their rubrics based on a set of criteria. Here is a *rubric I found on it:

1. The speakers’ statements clearly supported their position in the debate. 5 4 3 2 1 
2. The speakers’ statements appeared to be well researched and documented. 5 4 3 2 1 
3. The speakers addressed the opposing team and made appropriate eye contact. 5 4 3 2 1 
4. Arguments were presented with clarity and appropriate volume. 5 4 3 2 1 
5. Speakers were well rehearsed with minimal reliance on notes. 5 4 3 2 1 
6. Rebuttals were specific to opposing arguments and expressed with clarity. 5 4 3 2 1 
7. Rebuttals showed evidence of good listening skills. 5 4 3 2 1 
8. Concluding arguments and statements were effective and convincing. 5 4 3 2 1 
9. Speakers adhered to the rules of the debate. 5 4 3 2 1 
10. The overall collective effort of the debate team was effective. 5 4 3 2 1 

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

This method can be used to make family decisions or it can be used to teach family members how to appropriately argue. Notice that none of the questions on the rubric were about choosing a clear winner, but instead were about the quality of the argument and the speakers' performance. Did they lose control of their emotions and start yelling? Did they get confused in what they were saying, were they unclear? The point of this style of debate is actually intended to help families have better arguments! 

We want to get rid of the sensationalism and come down to clear and logical ideas and desires. This way we can get to doing and action instead of back and forth warfare over the same points. Doing this will help family members consider opposing view points. What if one of the people who didn't want a dog is asked to argue in favor? This would create a good deal of empathy, wouldn't it? 

At the end of every FHE, we have an activity. So try a debate! as a family come up with a resolution to discuss, then put slips of paper in a hat for each person. have some of the slips be for judges. when teams are made, just go through the outline. It will help children to learn logic and social skill, plus, it will be fun! Also a nice treat at the end? why not.

Peace on Earth begins with peace in the home. If we are to rise to the increasing insanity of the world, children must know how to understand arguments and peacefully come to solutions. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that we must be humble. We must turn the other cheek. We must give our cloak to the person who first stole our coat. We must live the high law that Christ taught. Let our arguments resemble His selflessness.

Bibliography:

1. https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/love-at-home?lang=eng

2. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.29?lang=eng#28

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk

4. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/g_blms/g-15.pdf