Brooks Blames Church For Elizabeth Smarts Captivity

[gree0232]

I'm wondering what would be better wording there. A woman doesn't lose her chastity or virtue when someone rapes her, but a sacred part of her body is violated.

I never heard any of those analogies in Young Women's - chewed gum, wilted rose, etc. It comes across as the act making you now disgusting. Of course, a man wouldn't consider his wife to be a chewed up piece of gum after their wedding night for the rest of their marriage. People should just stay away from analogies like that and simply explain that we owe it to our future spouses to save ourselves for them.

I think there are two points here:

#1 - there is a huge difference between promiscuity and rape.

#2 - We should be careful in teaching sexual values to indicate the differences between promiscuity and sexual abuse.

It is true, whether you are a boy or girl, that heavily promiscuous people tend to be less desirable particularly in those seeking committed, love based marriages.

There is unfortunately some truth in the point that Mrs. Brooks is making - young female sexual assault victims are very often not treated as victims, but as promiscuous young ladies. The recent case of Stuebenville, OH is a case in point (as are the recent teen suicides that followed similiar cases in other areas of the country). That does not mean it happens everywhere, and many victims of sexual assault are afforded the appropriate respect and concern, the proper delineation made.

However, and the final point that both Mrs. Smart and Mrs. Brooks are making is that those who have chosen chastity have the added suffering of having that chastity ripped from them, and often, incorrectly, view the assault as a form of promiscuity.

Offering a warning, unfortunately, about taking correct teaching of chastity to the extreme that it overshadows abuse is ... perhaps easier than it is to set standards about how to teach the role of chastity to children with the larger context of a scarier world of sexuality ... particularly when they girl is still 14 and thoughts and awareness of rape are still, hopefully, many years away?

[Calm]

those who have chosen chastity have the added suffering of having that chastity ripped from them

They may have their virginity**** "ripped" from them in the sense of the physical act and state, but they still have their chastity fully...it cannot be taken from them because chastity is not a physical state, but a spiritual and mental one.

There is no microscope, x-ray or other physical test that can measure if someone is chaste or not.

***And even that I would debate in certain definitions and connotations of the word.

Edited May 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

It is true, whether you are a boy or girl, that heavily promiscuous people tend to be less desirable particularly in those seeking committed, love based marriages.

However, and the final point that both Mrs. Smart and Mrs. Brooks are making is that those who have chosen chastity have the added suffering of having that chastity ripped from them, and often, incorrectly, view the assault as a form of promiscuity.

Offering a warning, unfortunately, about taking correct teaching of chastity to the extreme that it overshadows abuse is ... perhaps easier than it is to set standards about how to teach the role of chastity to children with the larger context of a scarier world of sexuality ... particularly when they girl is still 14 and thoughts and awareness of rape are still, hopefully, many years away?

Is it true if someone has been promiscuous by their own foolish choices but if they repent are they are less desirable? In the LDS Church culture I think due to the way chastity is taught the answer is often yes and your response tends to reflect that. Personally though I think in most cases the answer should be no they are not less desirable. And we and the Church should not teach that they are or may be.

Who has not sinned? Doesn't James teach that if you break one of the commandments of the law you are guilty of all? I understand the consequences and results and even time it takes to perhaps repent of some sins is more than others. The point is that we are all damaged goods to one extent or another and all need the atonement of Jesus Christ. When one enters a covenant relationship with Him they are justified and thus new creations or creatures. All things in the past are dead to them. Then as they move forward in this saving justification they begin the sanctification process which takes a long time and is a different path for everyone. Of course in that journey we will still sin to one degree or another. That is why we continue to repent and renew the covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ weekly. As long as one stays in the saving covenant they continue to be perfect being made such by the grace and mercy of their perfect partner, Jesus the Christ.

Nobody should be branded permanently damaged goods.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

Is it true if someone has been promiscuous by their own foolish choices but if they repent are they are less desirable? In the LDS Church culture I think due to the way chastity is taught the answer is often yes and your response tends to reflect that. Personally though I think in most cases the answer should be no they are not less desirable. And we and the Church should not teach that they are or may be.

Who has not sinned? Doesn't James teach that if you break one of the commandments of the law you are guilty of all? I understand the consequences and results and even time it takes to perhaps repent of some sins is more than others. The point is that we are all damaged goods to one extent or another and all need the atonement of Jesus Christ. When one enters a covenant relationship with Him they are justified and thus new creations or creatures. All things in the past are dead to them. Then as they move forward in this saving justification they begin the sanctification process which takes a long time and is a different path for everyone. Of course in that journey we will still sin to one degree or another. That is why we continue to repent and renew the covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ weekly. As long as one stays in the saving covenant they continue to be perfect being made such by the grace and mercy of their perfect partner, Jesus the Christ.

Nobody should be branded permanently damaged goods.

Exactly...................................................!

[gree0232]

They may have their virginity**** "ripped" from them in the sense of the physical act and state, but they still have their chastity fully...it cannot be taken from them because chastity is not a physical state, but a spiritual and mental one.

There is no microscope, x-ray or other physical test that can measure if someone is chaste or not.

***And even that I would debate in certain definitions and connotations of the word.

I don't disagree with you, but I have seen the after effects of an assault - and saying the words if different than 'believing' the reality. That is the point of Mrs. Brooks' and Mrs. Smart's comments. Its less about definitions then it is about psychology of an assault.

[gree0232]

Is it true if someone has been promiscuous by their own foolish choices but if they repent are they are less desirable? In the LDS Church culture I think due to the way chastity is taught the answer is often yes and your response tends to reflect that. Personally though I think in most cases the answer should be no they are not less desirable. And we and the Church should not teach that they are or may be.

Who has not sinned? Doesn't James teach that if you break one of the commandments of the law you are guilty of all? I understand the consequences and results and even time it takes to perhaps repent of some sins is more than others. The point is that we are all damaged goods to one extent or another and all need the atonement of Jesus Christ. When one enters a covenant relationship with Him they are justified and thus new creations or creatures. All things in the past are dead to them. Then as they move forward in this saving justification they begin the sanctification process which takes a long time and is a different path for everyone. Of course in that journey we will still sin to one degree or another. That is why we continue to repent and renew the covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ weekly. As long as one stays in the saving covenant they continue to be perfect being made such by the grace and mercy of their perfect partner, Jesus the Christ.

Nobody should be branded permanently damaged goods.

Two points:

#1 - What advice do you give a promiscuous young man or lady? Do you tell them its fine and that they can never be permanently damaged goods? So keep on doing it? Or do you tell them about the sacred procreative powers of sexual intercourse? Do you tell them about the scientifically documented lowered self esteem and self worth which, especially in women, leads to greater risk of suicide? How about the potency of sexual addiction which propels one from one empty sexual relationship to another?

In short, the analogy with promiscuity does hold - the promiscuous standing next to the chaste do appear to be damaged goods. Making that point is not inherently evil or wrong because ... its true isn't it?

Indeed, the church states that through repentance and forgiveness we can leave these damaging effects, but the above statement in wise warning nevertheless remains a valid statement in a general sense - chastity is undoubtedly the better option.

#2 - In the event of a sexual assault (or any violent assault for that matter), we should be mindful that there are effects that linger well after the assault. As Mrs. Smart's comments indicate (as does Stockholm Syndrome in general) some of these effects, particularly in prolonged abuse situations, can heavily influence our thoughts, our agency, and indeed our deeds.

What Mrs. Smart eludes to with her comments is that chastity often goes out the window after a sexual assault, as victims struggle to deal with the 'illogical' aspects of an assault.

The message said often about chastity is one needs to be said ... and a line of inquiry that should probably be dropped when someone finds themselves unable to control their sexuality. Sometimes it indeed immaturity, but the warning Mrs. Smart gives about being unable to walk away from a madman should be pause enough to stop and consider the deeper context of a situation.

The real issue, at least in my mind, is less about the facts and correct aspect of either side as it is about how to teach this to our young. Elizabeth was 14 when she was abducted, her sister was even younger when the criminal came back and attempted to get her too.

Chastity in an unchaste world is difficult, the reality of those who have chosen to follow the adversary makes that a more complex teaching point - the audience of that message, their ability to grasp it, rather than ourselves is the key IMO.

[Teancum]

Two points:

#1 - What advice do you give a promiscuous young man or lady? Do you tell them its fine and that they can never be permanently damaged goods? So keep on doing it? Or do you tell them about the sacred procreative powers of sexual intercourse? Do you tell them about the scientifically documented lowered self esteem and self worth which, especially in women, leads to greater risk of suicide? How about the potency of sexual addiction which propels one from one empty sexual relationship to another?

In short, the analogy with promiscuity does hold - the promiscuous standing next to the chaste do appear to be damaged goods. Making that point is not inherently evil or wrong because ... its true isn't it?

Indeed, the church states that through repentance and forgiveness we can leave these damaging effects, but the above statement in wise warning nevertheless remains a valid statement in a general sense - chastity is undoubtedly the better option.

When I was a bishop and even before I taught youth, my children, anyone the law of chastity and it benefits in a responsible way without telling people that they would be damaged goods, licked cupcakes etc. of course I did not teach them that they should go on sinning nor that it was just fine. But yes I never told,anyone they would be permenantly damned goods. I believe that is false. I taught the same for any commandment. Then when someone was ready to repent I taught them what I wrote above about the gospel of Christ. You gospel.....good news....not bad.

[Tacenda]

When I was a bishop and even before I taught youth, my children, anyone the law of chastity and it benefits in a responsible way without telling people that they would be damaged goods, licked cupcakes etc. of course I did not teach them that they should go on sinning nor that it was just fine. But yes I never told,anyone they would be permenantly damned goods. I believe that is false. I taught the same for any commandment. Then when someone was ready to repent I taught them what I wrote above about the gospel of Christ. You gospel.....good news....not bad.

And that's a lucky youth to have had you as their bishop! Anyone saying a girl is damaged goods is saying the atonement is damaged goods. And if a girl or boy feels like they are permanently damaged, they will probably give up and go down a road of unhappiness. People that caused that, will be held accountable for the harm given from their thinking. Edited May 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

And that's a lucky youth to have had you as their bishop! Anyone saying a girl is damaged goods is saying the atonement is damaged goods. And if a girl or boy feels like they are permanently damaged, they will probably give up and go down a road of unhappiness. People that caused that, will be held accountable for the harm given from their thinking.

Bullseye!!!

[USU78]

Are principles like freedom and liberty worth more than human life?

Am I alone in my willingness to risk my life to stop a rapist from raping?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

About 1948 my father, a year after his mustering out of the Army Air Corps (he ended up a paratrooper with orders for the first wave of the invasion of the home islands) was walking with my mother and some friends along a street in Logan. They came upon a horrifying scene. A little kid was bawling his eyes out and screaming for help. He stood helplessly as a man was attacking and attempting rape on a young woman.

My father, the former Golden Gloves champ, all-state football player and state champion 220-relay legman, sprinted to her defense and started wailing on the attacker in all his red-headed fury. His male companions had to pull him off the stricken craven, whom he might easily have killed.

Years later, my father was finishing up his EdD at yBu and was involved in an in-class discussion where a cynical much younger man was questioning his ideals of personal responsibility, citizenship and manhood. My father kept insisting on his commitment and everybody's responsibility to be likewise so committed. He even related the above story. His accuser in the class suddenly started sobbing uncontrollably.

It turns out . . .

He had been that sobbing, helpless child.

Edited May 12, 2013 by USU78

[Tacenda]

About 1948 my father, a year after his mustering out of the Army Air Corps (he ended up a paratrooper with orders for the first wave of the invasion of the home islands) was walking with my mother and some friends along a street in Logan. They came upon a horrifying scene. A little kid was bawling his eyes out and screaming for help. He stood helplessly as a man was attacking and attempting rape on a young woman.

My father, the former Golden Gloves champ, all-state football player and state champion 220-relay legman, sprinted to her defense and started wailing on the attacker in all his red-headed fury. His male companions had to pull him off the stricken craven, whom he might easily have killed.

Years later, my father was finishing up his EdD at yBu and was involved in an in-class discussion where a cynical much younger man was questioning his ideals of personal responsibility, citizenship and manhood. My father kept insisting on his commitment and everybody's responsibility to be likewise so committed. He even related the above story. His accuser in the class suddenly started sobbing uncontrollably.

It turns out . . .

He had been that sobbing, helpless child.

Okay, tissues anyone?

[Questing Beast]

Judasfreakingpriest, what a story. It's that kind that ends up included in inspirational books. I hope it is literally true. But if not, the strength of the story remains, and so it is with all legends which become myths. They share familiar qualities that make them endure, and enduring they get retold countless times. I hope you are aware of that when you share them....

[gree0232]

And that's a lucky youth to have had you as their bishop! Anyone saying a girl is damaged goods is saying the atonement is damaged goods. And if a girl or boy feels like they are permanently damaged, they will probably give up and go down a road of unhappiness. People that caused that, will be held accountable for the harm given from their thinking.

And yet, its true.

There is the science, promiscuity before marriage very often leads to to issues during marriage and even finding marriage:

"Shortly after the release of a new booklet I wrote this past summer entitled The Promiscuous Woman: Modern Attitudes about Love and Sex (WiseAdviceBooks, 2007), I began to receive numerous letters and emails from many single women who after many years of promiscuous sexual behaviour, now decided they want marriage; however, these women are having a hard time finding someone who will commit to a long term relationship. Many of these attractive and successful young women are feeling their biological clocks expire and desperation for many of them is setting in.

Sadly, promiscuity for more and more women has become a way of life. These women mistakenly thought they could hop in and out of bed and still find Mr. Right whenever they wanted; however, they are finding that this is not the case. It seems that the more sexually liberated our culture becomes, the more difficult it becomes for many to findmarriage. The more women emulate some of men’s bad behaviours (casual sex) the more difficult it becomes to find Mr. Right."

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Promiscuity_And_Marriage_Don_t_Mix.html

So the fact remains, how do we teach our children this reality in a way that teaches the reality of sexual 'liberation' along with the reality of sexual violence? Its not easy is it?

Again, we have a duty to raise children with the best information and values possible, and the decision to engage in promiscuity is not just damaging in the eyes of the Heavenly Father, it is damaging in the eyes of your fellow humans. It leads you down a path of self devaluation where your body becomes the center of relationships and genuine love and self respect become harder and harder to find. In fact, it appears that it is easier for Heavenly Father to forgive you than it is for your fellow men to forget your transgressions.

As a minimum, as people do attempt to overlook these issues, its something that a couple entering into a marriage with a promiscuous past should be aware of and coached about potential issues. In our young, it remains a valid word of caution - and one that SHOULD be stated as a balance to the sexual material and temptation that floats around in our society. To not offer that countering narrative would be abdicated a sacred responsibility ... if nothing else, it allows someone who chooses to ignore it and head down the path of promiscuity to see the 'wise counsel' he was given and aids in returning to a better path.

You will not be permanently damaged goods in the eyes of the Lord, none of use will ever be that, but our choices do have consequences.

The key difference is that abuse and assault are not the result of agency, but its removal. Acts that strip us of our agency are neither our fault, nor are they sins. It is the act of removing agency that is the sin.

[wenglund]

Yes, you are one of a kind, Wade

Well...there is also this boy and this boy and this boy and others who were not only will, but did risk their lives to save people from being raped. So, I am not one of a kind, at least not in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

Judasfreakingpriest, what a story. It's that kind that ends up included in inspirational books. I hope it is literally true. But if not, the strength of the story remains, and so it is with all legends which become myths. They share familiar qualities that make them endure, and enduring they get retold countless times. I hope you are aware of that when you share them....

My father's now 87 (nearly 88), but would be happy to tell you about it.

[EllenMaksoud]

Read here: http://www.religiond...rsity_audience/

Basically she is saying if the church Didnt hold chastity as important Elizabeth Smart would have ran away from her captors. Give me a break!

This whole subject has me in a very dark place; a not safe place.

As a child, my stepfather somehow singled me out and beat me severely almost every day of the week. Years later, I understand that he was just taking out his frustrations and saw me as the easy target. My mother did not stop him. She would just zone out and go in the other room. While I was little, I tried to endear myself to him in hopes that if I was extra good and did not make any mistakes he would love me and not beat me. I even called him Daddy to make him love me. I didn't run way when I was young because I knew he would just beat me more when he caught me. He told me he would kill me several times and a few times I thought he did. When I got older, I did run away, and turned myself into the authorities,thinking they would make it stop. They treated me like it was my fault and put me in a Juvenile detention facility. Worse happened to me there. I left there without my virginity. They took me right back home and I was confined to my room, except for school for the next two years.

If someone is advancing the idea that I or Mrs Smart are chewed gum, they are serving satan.

[teddyaware]

This whole subject has me in a very dark place; a not safe place.

As a child, my stepfather somehow singled me out and beat me severely almost every day of the week. Years later, I understand that he was just taking out his frustrations and saw me as the easy target. My mother did not stop him. She would just zone out and go in the other room. While I was little, I tried to endear myself to him in hopes that if I was extra good and did not make any mistakes he would love me and not beat me. I even called him Daddy to make him love me. I didn't run way when I was young because I knew he would just beat me more when he caught me. He told me he would kill me several times and a few times I thought he did. When I got older, I did run away, and turned myself into the authorities,thinking they would make it stop. They treated me like it was my fault and put me in a Juvenile detention facility. Worse happened to me there. I left there without my virginity. They took me right back home and I was confined to my room, except for school for the next two years.

If someone is advancing the idea that I or Mrs Smart are chewed gum, they are serving satan.

Ellen, I doubt you could find even one informed and rational Latter-day Saint in this world who would think this ridiculous "chewed gum" analogy applies even remotely to victims of rape and sexual abuse. The only reason why an impressionable LDS victim of rape and abuse would think this "analogy" does apply to the them would be because no one ever bothered to explain to them otherwise. But if there are some "Mormons" out there who think it does apply, in my book that would be prima facie evidence they are either slow of wit or clueless when in comes to the meaning of the gospel message. My heart goes out to you,,,

Edited May 13, 2013 by teddyaware

[gree0232]

Is it true if someone has been promiscuous by their own foolish choices but if they repent are they are less desirable? In the LDS Church culture I think due to the way chastity is taught the answer is often yes and your response tends to reflect that. Personally though I think in most cases the answer should be no they are not less desirable. And we and the Church should not teach that they are or may be.

Who has not sinned? Doesn't James teach that if you break one of the commandments of the law you are guilty of all? I understand the consequences and results and even time it takes to perhaps repent of some sins is more than others. The point is that we are all damaged goods to one extent or another and all need the atonement of Jesus Christ. When one enters a covenant relationship with Him they are justified and thus new creations or creatures. All things in the past are dead to them. Then as they move forward in this saving justification they begin the sanctification process which takes a long time and is a different path for everyone. Of course in that journey we will still sin to one degree or another. That is why we continue to repent and renew the covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ weekly. As long as one stays in the saving covenant they continue to be perfect being made such by the grace and mercy of their perfect partner, Jesus the Christ.

Nobody should be branded permanently damaged goods.

I agree with you.

But I am also a realist.

I have also, as I have aged and garnered insights, believe that there is something to the parable of the fruit of the tree of good and evil.

This may seem rambling a bit, but I swear there is a point ;-)

Take for example alcohol. There are those among us that have a genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism. A person who never partakes in drink is in no danger of succumbing to that alcohol gene - indeed, knowledge of the gene may even help is maintaining that abstinence. The temptation of alcohol is thus fairly easy to control - perhaps even non-existent?

That is very different for those who partake in alcohol - particularly those who have a genetic pre-disposition toward alcoholism. Once you have succumbed to the cups, so to speak, one can still quit - but the temptation remains - and can indeed be quite powerful. The safeguards put in place to maintain that choice in the face of GREAT temptation are necessary to be thought out and enacted.

The same analogous principle applies to promiscuity. We can be forgiven our sins, but to those of us who have only experienced one lover in our lives the temptation for sexual behavior is less than it is for those who have experienced many lovers. The choice of chastity and then monogamous marriage is a difficult one - or at least it can be - and as such certain safeguards against that temptation are both necessary and should be enacted.

Indeed, the reality is that promiscuity does effect both a man and a woman:

"Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002;Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners"

http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-promiscuity-data.html

The intent is less to caste blame for poor choices, for as you say, we are all guilty of that and in need of forgiveness. What is however needed, in this case, is the knowledge of the 'wages of sin' and that succumbing to these sins is, in a manner, revealing a weakness in our armor. There is no reason to simply expect that the weakness goes away, and the memory of succumbing to that weakness leaves the temptation there.

That does not mean that we are 'literally' damaged fruit, but the reality is that one study after another relates promiscuity to higher levels of divorce ... and if you are seeking a stable marriage ... chastity clearly is the better path to success. The duty here is less in castigating the 'promiscuous' as it is in mentioning and extolling the superiority of chastity.

We all wander off the path from time to time, but a realistic appraisal of our faults, as the atoning process facilitates, allows us to identify and overcome these weaknesses. To identify and ward off temptation. To set and remain true to the virtuous path. If necessary we have Bishops and our fellow church members who can help us along this path.

Perhaps the point that Mrs. Brooks makes about the chastity in relation to Mrs. Smart's experience would be to ensure that adage of fruit is always taught with the lesson of atonement?

[DJBrown]

Do people recognize that inherent in the argument from the church's critics (and some church members) in response to the Elizabeth Smart speech at Johns Hopkins is blame of the victim?

Whether it be the religion, school, parents, neighbors, or whatever contributes to a victims upbringing that the critics want to blame, it still places blame on the victim.

How is the argument that the religious beliefs of a girl made her the "perfect victim" any different than "a woman wearing a short skirt is asking to get raped?"

Pretty gross.

[Calm]

Do people recognize that inherent in the argument from the church's critics (and some church members) in response to the Elizabeth Smart speech at Johns Hopkins is blame of the victim?

Whether it be the religion, school, parents, neighbors, or whatever contributes to a victims upbringing that the critics want to blame, it still places blame on the victim.

How is the argument that the religious beliefs of a girl made her the "perfect victim" any different than "a woman wearing a short skirt is asking to get raped?"

Pretty gross.

Interesting observation.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I think Joanna Brooks was spot on. And it's irrelevant where Elizabeth Smart specifically was taught that analogy. The fact of the matter is that many young women were (and maybe still are?) taught the analogy at church by well meaning teachers. These sorts of analogies have long been complained about and it's great that Elizabeth Smart is bringing greater attention to this problem.

[Stargazer]

I think the easiest explanation for the Moroni quote is that while Moroni was right about "virtue" (i.e. virginity) being precious and something to be highly valued for a young man or woman, he was wrong about whether or not the act of rape robs someone of theirs in a moral sense.

So it's a valid quote to show the importance of not willingly fornicating, but a little archaic in its application to the particular circumstance.

If I had been raped, I would have considered that something had been taken from me by force. I would have felt "robbed". But I wouldn't feel guilty, I don't think. Used, probably. But it's still fair to say that I had been robbed of my virtue. I think it's a short-hand way of saying it. If I had a dollar bill and someone stole it from me, then yes I've been robbed of my dollar. It wasn't my fault, but it's still lost to me.

I think that some people get all wrapped around the axle about the precise wording and the semantics.

[Stargazer]

I think Joanna Brooks was spot on. And it's irrelevant where Elizabeth Smart specifically was taught that analogy. The fact of the matter is that many young women were (and maybe still are?) taught the analogy at church by well meaning teachers. These sorts of analogies have long been complained about and it's great that Elizabeth Smart is bringing greater attention to this problem.

And I think she was spot OFF.

[Calm]

But I wouldn't feel guilty, I don't think.

I think that some people get all wrapped around the axle about the precise wording and the semantics.

It is pretty consistent that there is guilt involved with rape victims...unwarranted guilt, but most do feel guilty...they replay stuff like 'what if I hadn't done this' or 'done this'. How long they feel guilt likely depends on their culture as well as individual characteristics.

Since words are what we used for connotations and children often respond to more of what they think a word implies than what a word really means, we need to be careful in our choice of words when teaching children. And emotional responses even of adults are often rooted in what they learned or thought they learned as children. However, I also believe that we need to not get upset with those who aren't as precise or perhaps as cautious as we think they should be as I highly doubt anyone is intentionally causing others harm in this fashion (at least most people and as far as I can tell all the people who post on this board are not the sadistic type), though it may be appropriate depending on the circumstances to point out something we believe is problematic in order to stop or diminish possible harm.

[Calm]

I think Joanna Brooks was spot on. And it's irrelevant where Elizabeth Smart specifically was taught that analogy. The fact of the matter is that many young women were (and maybe still are?) taught the analogy at church by well meaning teachers. These sorts of analogies have long been complained about and it's great that Elizabeth Smart is bringing greater attention to this problem.

Too bad Sister Brooks didn't focus on what Sister Smart was trying to bring attention to and instead went off on a side issue. Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah