Virtue And Chastity: What Did Mormon Mean?

[gtaggart]

What did Mormon mean when he wrote of chastity and virtue as "most dear and precious above all things." I realize that those words may have different meanings today both in and out of the church, but what did Mormon mean?

Today on Facebook, I responded to David Bokovoy, who had written

Wow! Very, very significant article by Peggy Stack with important observations from my friend

Kristine Haglund

on the first verse LDS young women are required to learn in their Personal Progress work on the value of Virtue. Kristine calls for a change and rightfully argues that virtue cannot be taken away by rape.

I responded with the following:

I agree that chastity cannot be taken away by rape, but virtue can, at least it can be if you take the word virtue to mean "Acting power; something efficacious [as in] Jesus, knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned - Mark 3." This is definition #5 from Webster's 1828 dictionary

http://1828.mshaffer...rch/word,virtue

This definition makes sense in the context of Moroni 9:9 because 1.) virtue as another word for chastity is redundant; 2.) the daughters obviously were deprived of their agency, their "acting power"; and 3.) as we learned once again in the last General Conference, “Next to life itself, free agency is God’s greatest gift to mankind" (

http://www.lds.org/g...iberty?lang=eng

). That is, agency--acting power--is arguably one of two gifts that Mormon wrote are "most dear and precious."

I also think there’s an argument to made that the word chastity in Moroni 9:9 may mean something different from the way we use it today, again using Webster’s 1828 dictionary. However, it’s a difficult one to make given today’s understanding of the word and making it probably detracts from the very important work of assuring young women and men that their chastity, their purity can’t be taken from them. Nevertheless, I'll try.

The definition of chastity in Webster's 1828, includes this sentence/definition: "freedom from all unlawful commerce of sexes." Certainly, rape is an unlawful commerce of the sexes. Now, consider what could have been on Mormon's mind when he wrote that verse: "Nobody should have to undergo being raped. Nobody should have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives. Yes, nobody should be deprived of their right to be free from all unlawful commerce of the sexes. Yes, everybody has a right to be chaste in this sense."

In other words, consider how "dear and precious" it is to have never endured such a horrible experience? How "dear and precious" is it to never have had your agency--your "acting power"--torn from you, so that you could be deprived of the right to live free of such a violation?

This is not to say that the woman or man who is raped is anything other than pure or chaste. However, I'm guessing we all agree that anyone who has been raped has been deprived of something dear and precious: her (or his) right to be free of that terrible experience and all the mental (and societal) garbage that flows from it.

Again, I realize that we use "virtue" and "chastity" differently today, but it's at least arguable that Mormon was using those words the way I just explained.

I hope it's obvious that I'm appealing to Webster's 1828 dictionary because the tells us better than today's dictionaries what those words must have meant when Joseph translated the plates. And I hope it's also obvious that I realize that even Webster's 1828 dictionary offers other definitions as well. Finally, I hope it's obvious that I think that a woman (or man) who is raped is still virtuous and chaste as we use those terms today. They have not sinned. They are therefore clean in the Lord's sight and should be in ours.

Edited May 8, 2013 by gtaggart

[cinepro]

If you're right, it's an even better argument against that citation being studied by young women in 2013. They are taught that "chastity" and "virtue" have specific meanings:

https://www.lds.org/young-women/personal-progress/virtue?lang=eng

If Mormon meant something else in Moroni 9, then the young women should not be told to read that verse.

[Danzo]

Maybe Mormon was trying to say that the Nephites were doing bad things to the Lamanite women?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Danzo

[JAHS]

I tend to believe that what was translated as chastity in the Book of Mormon might not have the same meaning then as it does to us now. But here's another perspective on this. Refering to the Moroni 9;9 scripture Rodney Turner in an article he wrote called "Morality and Marriage in the Book of Mormon" said:

"These Lamanite daughters, though robbed of their physical virginity, died virtuous and innocent in God's eyes. Because, in truth, virtue cannot be taken, it must be willingly given. So these girls were no less chaste and pure of soul because of being violated, but they had been deprived of the spirit of chastity, of their God-given feelings of dignity and worth as human beings. Their own holy of holies in the temples of their spirits had suffered defilement—an "abomination of desolation." It was in this sense that their chastity and virtue were stolen from them. Can anyone doubt that the all-too-prevalent crime of rape is nothing less than a form of spiritual murder? It was this crime—albeit less vicious in degree—that the Lord declared an abomination among the Nephites." ("Morality and Marriage in the Book of Mormon", Rodney Turner)

[Sine Saw Square]

You've written out the thoughts I've been mulling over what M9:9 probably means in a much clearer way than I ever could. Of course the Church has no intention of hurt anyone especially those who are already suffering. The definition of virtue in the YW Personal Progress is at odds with your reading of the text and meaning of the words in the 19th century context.

You cite the definition of virtue as "acting power" (which I agree fits the circumstances of M9:9)

The YW Personal Progress defines it as "a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards."

Can that be forcibly taken away by someone else?

I don't think those who wrote the YW program intend this implication at all. I don't see the problem with modifying it in consideration for those who might be hurt by it.

[cinepro]

Maybe Mormon was trying to say that the Nephites were doing bad things to the lamanite women?

I suspect when he described the rape, murder and cannibalism, that was what he was generally trying to say...

The problem is this:

Being "deprived of chastity and virtue" is not a euphemism for being "raped".

But Mormon appears to think it is.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cinepro

[gtaggart]

The problem is this:

Being "deprived of chastity and virtue" is not a euphemism for being "raped".

But Mormon appears to think it is.

No, you (and many others) appear to think that's what he's saying--and maybe it is. I'm just offering an alternative explanation.

[Questing Beast]

Of course being physically, forcibly violated causes lasting harm in this life. Is that "defilement"? No it is being wounded and bearing the scars for life. As pointed out on the other thread (Elizabeth Smart), the atonement heals all such mortal scarring and wounding. So yes, the violated ones remain virtuous and chaste. But they also remain changed for the rest of their mortal lives in ways that will trouble them and those who love them....

[cinepro]

No, you (and many others) appear to think that's what he's saying--and maybe it is. I'm just offering an alternative explanation.

FWIW, if you're talking about their "agency", it would probably be clearer to say that the daughters had their freedom taken away. The word "freedom" is used in the Book of Mormon 29 times, while "chastity" and "virtue" are used only one other time outside of this verse. So not only would it be clearer to us, it probably would have been clearer to Moroni as well.

So if that's what he meant, then epic semantic fail.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cinepro

[tyler90az]

The problem is we are trying to lump two different things together. Physical virtue and chastity are different then spiritual chastity and virtue. Physical virtue and chastity is the most precious physical gift anybody can offer. As Mormon says,^bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things" That does not mean they are not virtuous and chaste spiritually. They still hold a higher form of virtue and chastity. Any good man, such as her husband, could see that. Spiritual virtue and chastity is something that can not be taken in anyway, only given. Even if chastity and virtue are freely given, through the atonement, you can regain your spiritual virtue and chastity.

This seems to be Mormon's way of saying virginity. It is lumped in between two other physical things, eating and being killed. The only reason he uses those words is to emphasize just how precious of a gift it is. That people should not freely giving away this gift. Further down he again says how horrible the acts against women and children were calling the perps to repentance. He is not calling the women to repentance, since they did nothing wrong.

[wenglund]

Maybe Mormon was trying to say that the Nephites were doing bad things to the lamanite women?

Brilliant!

It amazes me how sometime scholarly thinking makes it less possible for us to grasp simple truths. Semantic games, like what is being played on this thread and another, particularly across time and cultures, can have a way of taking a simple string of wisdom and turning it into a Gordian knot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[Danzo]

I suspect when he described the rape, murder and cannibalism, that was what he was generally trying to say...

The problem is this:

Being "deprived of chastity and virtue" is not a euphemism for being "raped".

But Mormon appears to think it is.

If Mormon thinks it is a euphemism for being "raped", I'll go with it.

I can't seem to think he was saying anything else, when you read it in context.

I don't think he was giving a discourse on the Law of Chastity.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Danzo

[mercyngrace]

I'm wondering how Mormon got his hands on Webster's 1828 dictionary.

j/k

[Danzo]

I'm wondering how Mormon got his hands on Webster's 1828 dictionary.

j/k

Guess the translator should have used a 2013 dictionary instead

[MorningStar]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/bofm-title?lang=eng

An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

I think we get too hung up on words sometimes. I feel they lacked better wording, but it's not blaming the victims.

[Ahab]

FWIW, if you're talking about their "agency", it would probably be clearer to say that the daughters had their freedom taken away. The word "freedom" is used in the Book of Mormon 29 times, while "chastity" and "virtue" are used only one other time outside of this verse. So not only would it be clearer to us, it probably would have been clearer to Moroni as well.

So if that's what he meant, then epic semantic fail.

Saying someone's freedom was taken from them can refer to something as simple as puttting them in a jail cell, or tieing them up. Saying someone's chastity and virtue was taken from them refers to something of a more personal nature, I think. I could endure being put into a jail cell a lot more than having someone rape or molest me in some way. The latter is actually impossible for me to imagine, having never experienced it before myself, but I've been put in a jail cell and it wasn't really that big of a deal although there were other places I would rather have been.

[Rivers]

Citing Moroni 9:9 in teaching the Law of Chastity was a really stupid idea. I think Mormon's wording in that verse was simply a fancy way of saying that the women were raped.

[Darren10]

I'm wondering how Mormon got his hands on Webster's 1828 dictionary.

j/k

Heh!!!

Mormon could do anything.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Darren10

[Storm Rider]

_{It has always been my understanding that virginity can be lost, but virtue is something different. It is the purity of the soul, the heart of the individual that seeks after righteousness. A rape victim by have their virginity taken from them, but their virtue may remain fully intact. Chastity is treating one's body as a holy vessel and chastity also remains intact through a rape; chastity cannot be lost by force of another.}

[Rivers]

I'm wondering how Mormon got his hands on Webster's 1828 dictionary.

j/k

The same way that Moroni got his hands on Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews.

[Bernard Gui]

Guess the translator should have used a 2013 dictionary instead

If he were a true prophet, he would have used every dictionary edition ever printed.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm wondering how Mormon got his hands on Webster's 1828 dictionary.

j/k

He didn't of course.

But like any translator, Joseph Smith was obliged to find words at his disposal to try to convey meaning from the document being translated.

[Scott Lloyd]

The same way that Moroni got his hands on Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Hebrews.

If both Paul and Moroni were writing under revelation from Jesus Christ (and I believe they were) it is plausible they would have conveyed the same or similar ideas.

Furthermore, if Joseph Smith was translating by the gift and power of God (and I believe he was) it is plausible that he was divinely directed to use phrasing similar to that in the KJV New Testament, for the sake of scriptural unity, in rendering those ideas for latter-day readers.

In fact, that he did so is for me evidence in favor of, not against, the Book of Mormon as divinely produced scripture. That is, if an author were setting out to create a fraudulent book of scripture, he would not do something so transparently obvious as taking phrasing right out of the Kjng James Bible. Whatever the accusations may be against Joseph Smith, he was not an idiot.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

He didn't of course.

But like any translator, Joseph Smith was obliged to find words at his disposal to try to convey meaning from the document being translated.

But he also had to find words at his disposal that would preserve the chiasmus and other hebraisms that he didn't even know about, right?

[Rivers]

But he also had to find words at his disposal that would preserve the chiasmus and other hebraisms that he didn't even know about, right?

Brandt Gardner actually disregards hebraisms in his book about the BOM translation. He says they are products of using KJV English.