INFLUENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERS by Mrs. L. D. Avery-Stuttle

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · May 9, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 19.

INFLUENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTHERS

By Mrs. L. D. Avery-Stuttle

III. TRAINING TO OBEDIENCE.

IT has been said, and that truthfully, that the best masters are they who have themselves learned to obey. Everywhere and always there has been a great premium upon obedience. Its stock is never below par. What would all the armies of the world be worth without it? What would the greatest business houses or banks or corporations do without this most blessed virtue?—They would "go to the wall," and that quickly.

And if needed in the business and political world, surely the church of Christ needs it. To insure obedience from a child, the first requisite is to expect obedience. Give a child to understand that you have confidence in him, that you make no provision for disobedience, and the battle is half gained. Say to him, "Johnnie, I shall have to punish you if you do not obey me," and the possibility of disobedience is at once suggested to him.

There is a great distinction between a forced obedience, and a willing, loving obedience cheerfully rendered.

"Now, Mary, I'm going over to grandma's," said a young mother to her little one, "I'm not going to be gone long, but now, Mary,—now, Mary,"—shaking her finger significantly at the wondering child, "don't you get into the preserves. See here; I'm going to set the jar away up on the top pantry shelf; I guess you can't reach it up there."

Well, when the mother returned half an hour later, she was astonished to see little Mary calmly perched on the shelf, whither she had climbed from the back of a high chair, enjoying the forbidden sweets immensely. Yes, the mother was astonished—but she ought not to have been. "You said you guessed I couldn't weach it, so I thought I'd twy," sobbed the disappointed cherub.

In sharp contrast to the above, let us consider the manner in which the Almighty dealt with our first parents: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. . . . But of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Well, the tree was "in the midst of the garden;" it was not placed upon a shelf out of reach.

There is a vast deal of difference between "innocence" and "virtue." Innocence knows no evil. It has never met the fierce temptations of life. It knows nothing of the sad effects of sin. Innocence is most beautiful in the little child—but it is weak. It has not the strength of virtue. It is to virtue as the tender vine to the giant oak. Virtue understands and appreciates the seriousness of a daily battle with sin, and she knows by living experience the true joys of the victor. She has met temptation fierce and strong, and has come off conqueror. She knows what it is to be assaulted by a wily foe, and to gain glorious victories for God and the right.

The little child must be taught the beauty of virtue. Innocence without this blessed grace is too weak to wage warfare against the subtle allurements of the flesh and the devil.

I am thinking just now of a mother who taught her little one not to meddle with the things on the center table. But the wise mother did not remove the things, O no. "Baby, you must not touch that." But the toy was bright, and the temptation strong. Again the little fingers reached the coveted object. "No, no; baby must not touch that," patiently repeated the mother. Once again the toddling feet ventured near the forbidden ground, and the toy was again reached. This time the mother spats the tiny fingers till they tingle. "Baby must mind mama," was firmly repeated, and the toy again replaced. Of course the babe cried for a minute, but the lesson was learned.

A number of years have passed since then, but I can say truthfully that I never dread to have this woman's children visit me. The toys on the "what not" are never interfered with, and I would as soon trust one of them to look over my choicest treasures as one of my own family. Why?—Because they were taught obedience in early infancy. They can be trusted. I have seen the baby sister make the entire circuit of my sitting room with her tiny hands firmly clasped behind her back, evidently so they will not be tempted to meddle, and so get into trouble. I just had to compliment that mother on her good sense and wisdom in training that child, for I thought it one of the strangest sights I had ever seen; for a mere baby to exercise such self control was wonderful.

I think it pays to begin early to teach the little ones to be obedient. How early?—I will give you the answer a learned physician once gave when an anxious mother asked the same question: "A hundred years before they are born." Of course, he was thinking of hereditary influence.

"But all children are not alike; and you would not have me punish a tiny baby?" O, no; but "tiny babies" are not very apt to disobey or to be rebellious, are they? But as soon as they comprehend what is being said to them,—and that is very early,—so soon should they be taught prompt obedience. But I do not think it wise or best to force an issue over some little question; for instance, if the child is particularly stubborn or fiery tempered, reason should teach one that it would be best not needlessly to arouse his childish temper. Certainly the little one ought never to be teased or tormented to afford amusement (?) to any one.

O, that every child, everywhere, were taught to learn and to put into daily practise the command which says, "Honor thy father and thy mother." MRS. L. D. AVERY-STUTTLE.