Brooks Blames Church For Elizabeth Smarts Captivity

[Tacenda]

There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about a US WWII bomber being strafed by antiaircraft fire, and having its fuel tanks pierced, but not exploding. Later, upon examination (the story holds), it was discovered that none of the rounds had any explosive charge in them. They were all empty . . . except for one. In it was a note, scrawled on a scrap of paper in Czech, "This is all we can do for you right now."

What the slave-laborers did for the Allied war effort wasn't much . . . but it was enough.

I think this notion of efforts being not enough is demeaning to those who spent so much of their blood, sweat, tears, time and treasure looking for how many abducted children over the years, decades and centuries. Their efforts may not be much, but they are surely enough. Why would you inflict feelings of failure and guilt upon those feeling failure and guilt for their lack of success in a very human and humane venture like trying to find that missing girl?

Disgusting.

I'm not blaming the volunteer searchers. But don't we have some type of technology that would get every square inch behind their house looked at? Sorry, I disgusted you. Maybe they just didn't think he'd take her into the hills.

[Sis W.]

I was molested when I was about three---my parents found out and put a stop to it-----this was about 1941----when I was 12 andstarted M I A---ths subject of chastity came up----I was quite upset and I went home and asked my mother, "Mom, am I a virgin"? She looked at me with the fiercest look on her face and said"YES YOU ARE"---convinced me---I always regarded myself as clean and morally pure.Thank God for my good Mother.

[Sis W.]

I firmly believe she have given the same answer no matter my age----my mother believed you could only be morally unclean by your own willing participation.

[cinepro]

Judging from some of the comments, I get the sense that I have over-estimated the ability of young women to common-sensically garner the intended and helpful meaning of certain scriptures and analogies. And, some of what several men have said suggest that our young men may be likewise ill-disposed.

If so, then, since there is no perfect analogy, perhaps we should do away with analogies all together when teaching the youth so as to avoid inadvertent psychological damage--starting with "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" and "Give said the Little Stream."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry Wade, but we're not talking about hypotheticals. We're talking about the actual reaction by a specific young woman to being assaulted, and how her perceptions were influenced by a specific analogy.

There is no "intended and helpful meaning" to the chewing-gum analogy for someone who has already had sex (either voluntarily or involuntarily). The entire point of the analogy is to scare people into not having sex in the first place, but it comes at the price of stigmatizing those who have already crossed that line.

Frankly, there's no good solution to the problem. Either you tell teenagers there is something unique and worthwhile about not having sex (compared to having sex and repenting), or you tell them that they can repent and be made "pure" again through repentance, thus eliminating a lot of the reason they might want to avoid having sex in the first place.

Obviously, there has been a lot of teaching focusing on the first approach, but maybe there needs to be a more balanced and nuanced philosophy, but it will come at the risk of more teenagers having sex with the expectation that they can repent later.

Edited May 8, 2013 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

Why isn't the atonement enough here? Even if a girl makes a mistake and gives in, and yes I said gives in, why isn't the slate wiped clean? I think the majority of the time, a girl is coaxed into giving up her virginity. And usually they only want love. I think it'd be a good time to say to all the fathers out there. Once your daughters reach puberty don't dial back on your affections physically, still give her lots of hugs etc. A girl gets her self esteem from her father, atleast I've heard/read that. Make sure you stay involved in your daughters lives. The best girl can make a mistake, and usually because they want that love and confirmation they are missing from their dads.

[cinepro]

Here's a thought. Suppose we ammend the "chewing gum" analogy to say that repentance is like an amazing, fantastic machine that can magically take chewed gum and turn it into brand-new, clean gum.

From this:

To this:

Edited May 8, 2013 by cinepro

[mtomm]

I don't remember ever having had the chewed gum or licked cupcake object lesson when I was in YM in the 80s. I do, however, making the very distinct decision to do whatever I had to do stay alive if I were in the position of being assaulted, I didn't care was SWK had written and that we had been taught over and over. Love SWK, hate that teaching.

A much better object lesson that I've seen is one where the food coloring is placed in a glass of water, representing all sin and not just virtue, which is followed up with a few drops of bleach representing repentance and the atonement.

And I would also like to say that I'll take my children alive and sinning than dead and perfect.

[juliann]

Oh, I'm not claiming rationality. I was a teenage girl absorbing or mis-absorbing.

But I do remember doing thought experiments with myself to overcome my aversion to dying (fighting to the death), because I believed that that was what I had been instructed to do--die, if I didn't leave the situation having overcome the assailant. I did thought experiments to try to re-train myself to value my 'virtue' more than my 'life' (I barely had an idea of sexual matters in any case)--which was a difficult re-training because I was pretty sure I liked being alive even contemplating the possibility of a brutal situation like that. And I didn't come up with this 'I should die' out of thin air--maybe I 'shouldn't' have taken the Young Women's lessons that way--but that's they way they were given, so naturally, being obedient to the gospel, I hoped to be obedient and virtuous and, by golly, dead, were the time to ever come to me.

Since I have become an adult, and slightly more rational (hm? lol), I have re-concluded many things, of course.

This was common in my time and we would even talk to each other about what we would do. There was no other way to take those lessons. The influence of The Miracle of Forgiveness and Pres. McKay's statement were picked up and used just as we use catchy things from General conference today. I don't know why anyone would even question that as being the case.

Of course, those of us who were baptized in this thinking (which was also very cultural of course) are still alive and teaching young women today. That is why this never seems to go away. We have a better cultural outlook now, which hopefully most are assimilating but there will always be a hard core group passing this along. It doesn't seem that long ago that women were advised to not fight off an attacker and the emphasis was put on surviving rather than retaining your "virtue" at all costs. The common thinking was that it was impossible to hit a moving target so to speak, thus the need to prove you were put out of commission by marks of a good beating.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Moroni 9:9 could potentially send the wrong message. A girl/woman is not unchaste nor unvirtuous if she has been raped.

In what world? Not to mention the horror this child went through, there is a good chance someone she knows or even herself could get wind of such comments. Edited May 8, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[ERayR]

I'm not blaming the volunteer searchers. But don't we have some type of technology that would get every square inch behind their house looked at? Sorry, I disgusted you. Maybe they just didn't think he'd take her into the hills.

Nope, well at least not commonly available. Movies and science fiction portrayals to the contrary such technology is not readily available. If it were we would have no criminals at large.

[wenglund]

You bet Wade. You have insight that is special and others are just foolish to believe the words they read. But see what you are doing is saying your experience is the valid one and thus you invalidate everyone else whose experience and interpretation differs from you. Why can't you seem to accept that others views are equally as valid as yours? Why do you need to attempt to marginalize others experiences?

I have said no such things. Once again you are flailing at straw men.

I am curious, though, as to what unspeakable psychological horrors you may have experienced after reading these comments about adultery (and presumably other sexual sins) from the Savior in Mt. 5:

29 And if thy right eye ^aoffend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

30 And if thy right ^ahand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The unwilling victim needs all the love, charity, and understanding we ourselves would want. The willing accomplice needs repentance and all the love, charity, and understanding we ourselves would want.

[Teancum]

I have said no such things. Once again you are flailing at straw men.

I am curious, though, as to what unspeakable psychological horrors you may have experienced after reading these comments about adultery (and presumably other sexual sins) from the Savior in Mt. 5:

29 And if thy right eye ^aoffend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

30 And if thy right ^ahand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yea Wade your attitude is everyone who took the LDS Leaders at their word got it wrong but you got it right. You had no problem nor did millions of others according to you.

And the use of the sermon on the mount example is simply ludicrous as a comparison to LDS leaders stating that one is better off dead then having lost their virtue.

Carry on in your ever increasing arrogantly delusional world.

[Deborah]

One thing that seems to be lost in all this is that rape is not about sex; it's a violent act about control. I think that is what needs to be understood and I think is what we understand better now than they did years ago. Even a woman who doesn't believe in the law of chastity will feel dirty and violated and worthless if she is raped. I know because I have friends like that.

[wenglund]

Sorry Wade, but we're not talking about hypotheticals. We're talking about the actual reaction by a specific young woman to being assaulted, and how her perceptions were influenced by a specific analogy.

No. We are also generalizing about how young women and men interpret chastity analogies and how those analogies may have psychologically affected them.

There is no "intended and helpful meaning" to the chewing-gum analogy for someone who has already had sex (either voluntarily or involuntarily).

The chewing gum analogy isn't intended for those who have had sex, but rather for those who may be contemplating having sex. Obviously. This is part of the misunderstanding that can be easily corrected with an explanation of the limits of the analogy and to whom the analogies apply or not.

The entire point of the analogy is to scare people into not having sex in the first place, but it comes at the price of stigmatizing those who have already crossed that line.

This price is only exacted by those who read way too much into the analogy.

Frankly, there's no good solution to the problem. Either you tell teenagers there is something unique and worthwhile about not having sex (compared to having sex and repenting), or you tell them that they can repent and be made "pure" again through repentance, thus eliminating a lot of the reason they might want to avoid having sex in the first place.

Actually, there is a solution. I suggested it earlier, and it fits well with how the Church has chosen to handle things.

Obviously, there has been a lot of teaching focusing on the first approach, but maybe there needs to be a more balanced and nuanced philosophy, but it will come at the risk of more teenagers having sex with the expectation that they can repent later.

To me, reason suggests that, as has wisely been the case, and as a general rule, the focus ought tobe on prevention (a stitch in time saves nine), and then address specific cases of transgression and misunderstanding as they present themselves.

There will invariably be some challenges of misunderstanding when transitioning fundamentalist/literalistic thinking children to more nuanced and symbolic thinking adults, but those challenges aren't valid reasons to scratch reasonable approaches on either side of the development scale.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 8, 2013 by wenglund

[Questing Beast]

So you don't think she was defiled? I would say rape is the epitome of defilement. It clearly wasn't her fault, and I think her husband understands that.

Not defiled, violated. She obviously is superior to her ordeal. It could be argued that she is stronger and BETTER as a person because of that violation experience. If she were defiled she would be less than she was before not more.

Rape is arguably the epitome of violation. Murder is better in some cases because it lets the victim escape back to innocence and purity. I consider a rapist and murderer to be alike. If the victim is strong enough s/he survives spiritually. If the victim is destroyed by the experience then they become corrupted by that experience, and being corrupted and defiled is synonymous. Rape in that regard is very much like murder, killing the innocence off and subjecting the victim to a self image altering paradigm where s/he feels utterly degraded. But if the victim is strong enough then that degradation is denied. It is a heinous sort of wrong thinking in society to carte blanche relegate rape victims in to the "defiled" status of a lesser person, simply because of the rape. If the rape victim's self esteem is destroyed society's obligation ought to be to do all we can to help them heal, not stitch a virtual red letter on their chest....

[wenglund]

Yea Wade your attitude is everyone who took the LDS Leaders at their word got it wrong but you got it right.

Again, I have said no such things. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

You had no problem nor did millions of others according to you.

I am saying that millions of people turned out just fine....and they have.

And the use of the sermon on the mount example is simply ludicrous as a comparison to LDS leaders stating that one is better off dead then having lost their virtue.

It is actually an excellent example, and pertinent to sexual transgression.

However, I understand your reticence in answering my question. If you answer it honestly and correctly, the curtain will come crashing down on your Greek drama, and your self-righteous indignation will turn to smoke.

Carry on in your ever increasing arrogantly delusional world.

LOL, now that was funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 8, 2013 by wenglund

[Questing Beast]

I don't know what her husband thinks, but if he thinks that she wasn't violated or defiled, then he is an idiot, and seriously trivializes her ordeal. Rape is considered to be heinous because of the degree to which it violates and defiles.

It is not uncommon for women who have been raped to feel "dirty" and "disgusting" and to have a strong inclination to take showers to wash away the filth and defilement of the rapist--though, for prosecutorial reasons, this is the last thing they should do. This impulse is so strong in some rape victims that it may turn into an OCD-like disorder where they shower frequently and never feel clean.

This doesn't occur because of how society makes rape victims feel, but how the rape and the rapist makes them feel.

For you to brush this aside as though it doesn't happen, is disgusting.

Are you serious? You view Elizabeth as "damaged goods"? Again, that's disgusting.

I sure don't. If you think that being violated and defiled is equivalent to "damaged goods," then the problem isn't with me, but with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am presenting the common, or even traditional image of a rape victim as viewed by society. By you it seems. You think that de facto Elizabeth Smart will feel defiled, ergo society is right to consider her defiled. There is no healing in this possible. But if you take what she says NOW at face value you have to admire her strength in reclaiming her purity for herself. If society preaches "DAMAGED GOODS", lesser value, etc., then Elizabeth Smart faces a battle she cannot win. But if society accepts her as pure and as valuable as any woman who has never been raped (as her husband apparently does), then I fail to see the justification in adhering to the word "defiled". She is not defiled. God told her otherwise and she believes God....

[Questing Beast]

Rape is a disgusting thing, It doesn't make the victim of any less worth or value. To say it has no effect on the victim is like saying losing a limb has no effect on the amputee.

All of the definitions fit, maybe not in the sense you are thinking but it does fit. I have had the unfortunate occasion to counsel rape victims, probably the hardest thing I have ever done. The word THEY use to describe their feelings is "defiled," it is a very accurate description of what happens and how the victim feels.

But as has been pointed out by several posters here, it is not true. For society to impose further degradation by insisting that "defilement" has in fact occurred is wrong, Wrong, WRONG! Mostly our society defends the notion that defilement has not occurred. But some individuals cannot seem to get beyond their religious roots, born out of a time when a raped woman was no longer of value to anybody as a wife. I am so grateful that today we no longer believe that as a society, even if some individuals still cannot seem to move beyond their loathing....

[Questing Beast]

I hear what you are saying. However, to me, in some substantial ways, perception is reality, and the reality of rape is serious and ought not be trivialized, particularly not for semantic games like what I view Questing Beast engaging in.

That perceptions may later be changed, doesn't alter the serious reality of what was experienced in the moment or for some time thereafter. If women feel seriously defiled when raped, I am certainly not going to say that they weren't. I would rather agree with them--though I may later suggest that the defilement isn't permanent, and isn't a reflection on them or really about them, even though it was done to them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So we do agree in the main.

I take exception to admitting to them, at the time or for some time thereafter, that they have been defiled. I would agree that they feel that way, but insist till doomsday that they are not defiled because of having been violated. If they behave as if they are defiled, I would insist till doomsday that it is only their perception making them feel and act defiled. I do not consider them defiled in any way....

[Questing Beast]

Spiritually she is just as pure. Mentally, socially, and physically... no way. That kind of trauma almost always causes deep scares.

She was dishonored was she not? She was less clean, physically anyway. If someone throws mud at me I am unclean, even though it is not my fault.

Dishonored is not defiled. You are playing more word games. Yes she was dishonored, and violated, and felt like she would be better off dead. None of that has anything to do with the person she is. There was no way that Mitchell could get at her person. Our bodies can be marred beyond recognition and no defilement has taken place. I would like it if you would reconsider your pov....

[Questing Beast]

I'm feeling a lot of rage right now!

When people have evil things done to them, it does a lot of damage, and takes a long time to heal, and when you think you are healed, some jerk comes along and reminds you of the hurt and it feels like you are reliving the hurts all over again. It is almost like the person that reminded you is your perpetrator all over again. Sometimes it just feels like it would just be easier to slip a plastic bag over your head and a wire tie and make it all go away. I mean, how many times do you have to re live these things. What with the Boston thing and the Ohio thing, I am not safe, any more !

You never were safe in this world, physically anyway. I believe that we are incapable of bearing eternal scars from our mortality experiences. The contrasts with Joy become palpably imprinted upon our minds forever. But here, below, you, me, all of us, are not safe in any physical sense.

Peace to your soul sister....

[teddyaware]

An important point to remember in the midst of this debate is that despite the Church-informed impressions Elizabeth Smart may have had about the consequenses of lost virtue, she has, nonetheless, largely come out of the emotional trauma of her ordeal quite well. Though the powefully and seemingly inflexibly constructed firewall of Church standards and teachings on maintaining moral purity at all costs may seem harsh and even unwise to some, Elizabeth's deep mental impressions of that firewall seem to have caused no damage the atonement of Christ and love couldn't overcome.

As for that firewall of moral teaching itself -- it's likely been so powefully constructed and maintained over the years because if one gives the natural man, or woman, even a scant inch on the overriding importance of maintaining sexual purity, he or she might begin to rationalize some degree of sin. Though seemingly harsh and and even unkind to some, that moral firewall has probably saved a lot more people than it's ever hurt. When placed in the balance, the seemingly harsh firewall wins over a watered down version of the same, hands down.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

An important point to remember in the midst of this debate is that despite the Church-informed impressions Elizabeth Smart may have had about the consequenses of lost virtue, she has, nonetheless, largely come out of the emotional trauma of her ordeal quite well. Though the powefully and seemingly inflexibly constructed firewall of Church standards and teachings on maintaining moral purity at all costs may seem harsh and even unwise to some, Elizabeth's deep mental impressions of that firewall seem to have caused no damage the atonement of Christ and love couldn't overcome.

So now we're saying that we need "the atonement of Christ and love" in order to overcome the Church's teachings on moral purity?

Truly the Gospel is wonderfully simple and simply wonderful.

[wenglund]

I am presenting the common, or even traditional image of a rape victim as viewed by society. By you it seems. You think that de facto Elizabeth Smart will feel defiled, ergo society is right to consider her defiled. There is no healing in this possible.

I don't know that you could have twisted what I said any more than you just did.

But if you take what she says NOW at face value you have to admire her strength in reclaiming her purity for herself. If society preaches "DAMAGED GOODS", lesser value, etc., then Elizabeth Smart faces a battle she cannot win. But if society accepts her as pure and as valuable as any woman who has never been raped (as her husband apparently does), then I fail to see the justification in adhering to the word "defiled". She is not defiled. God told her otherwise and she believes God....

This is pretzel "logic" that doesn't really address what I said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-