Brooks Blames Church For Elizabeth Smarts Captivity

[teddyaware]

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.

A rather simplistic point of view, don't you think? She said her feelings of impurity and worthlessness were severly compounded when she reflected on being taught that one should rather fight and die than lose their virtue. Because of her LDS upbringing, she had an even greater burden to carry than, perhaps, others might have been who were not so taught. The seemingly rigid firewall of LDS teaching on moral purity was a great burden to carry during her captivity.

But the question at hand is, should the Church modify its frequently stated "virtue or death" teaching in order to make it easier for rape victims to recover spiritually and emotionally without having their minds further burdened by the teaching? My point is that if the moral firewall helps save a lot more people than it hurts, perhaps it would be wise to let the firewall remain in place, while simultaneously redoubling efforts to administer the gospel to help heal rape victims who did not lose their lives during the struggle with their attacker. Make sense now?

[juliann]

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....

Well stated. I liked this article: http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2013/05/elizabeth-smart-and-psychology-of.html?m=1

[juliann]

But the question at hand is, should the Church modify its frequently stated "virtue or death" teaching in order to make it easier for rape victims to recover spiritually and emotionally without having their minds further burdened by the teaching? My point is that if the moral firewall helps save a lot more people than it hurts, perhaps it would be wise to let the firewall remain in place, while simultaneously redoubling efforts to administer the gospel to help heal rape victims who did not lose their lives during the struggle with their attacker. Make sense now?

Are you unaware of how many girls and women experience molestation or rape?? And do we have new scripture about sacrificing those numbers to "help" others by shaming them into compliance?

[Calm]

Are you unaware of how many girls and women experience molestation or rape?? And do we have new scripture about sacrificing those numbers to "help" others by shaming them into compliance?

There is also the problem of those who after a minor sexual indiscretion, see no reason not to do much worse and continue because they see themselves as already contaminated and like the chewed piece of gum, they can't be 'unchewed', so why not just go on 'chewing'?

IOW, there are those for whom the message of the Atonement is not enough to counteract the "firewall" of overly harsh and false morality teachings.

The chewed gum and other analogies are false teachings if they teach that once done, the effects of sin can never be undone. It is contrary the doctrine of the Atonement. I don't see it as necessary for the Church to rely on false teachings when there are true teachings that likely work as well if not better. Fear is not the best motivator, imo; love, trust and hope are.

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

I consider a rapist and murderer to be alike.

Which is why those creeps who took the 3 girls should get the death penalty. He murdered their childhood.

[wenglund]

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....

To me, the main problem here is one of definitions. You, personally, have a narrow definition of the word "defiled." To you, it pertains only to the spirit/spiritual and refers only to what one may do to oneself, and not something someone else can do to one. Whereas, I, and I suspect most people (certainly women who have been raped. as well as the scriptures), use a broader definition that includes your definition, but also may pertaining to the physical and may also refer to what someone else can do to one.

As I and others use the term, while the rapist may not spiritually defile the person being raped, a rapist can physically defile them, just as a so-called artist can physically defile sacred religious symbols by displaying them in human waste, and vandals can physically defile a synagogue by painting pejorative graffiti on the walls. I could go on and on.

And, not only is it legitimate for us to define the word "defile' in this way, it is also perfectly legitimate to experience and express outrage when we believe people have been physically defiled. In fact, depending on the nature of the defilement, we may have a moral obligation to express moral outrage--as exemplified by the Savior in response to his Father's house being defiled by the money-changers.

The point being, you are welcome to use the term "defile" however narrowly you may wish. Just realize that we are equally welcome to legitimately use the term in the broader sense as well. We are not obliged to cater to your lexical preferences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Are you unaware of how many girls and women experience molestation or rape?? And do we have new scripture about sacrificing those numbers to "help" others by shaming them into compliance?

The Church isn't sacrificing anyone. Get a grip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[teddyaware]

Are you unaware of how many girls and women experience molestation or rape?? And do we have new scripture about sacrificing those numbers to "help" others by shaming them into compliance?

Are you unaware that the powerful LDS moral firewall on sexual purity has likely helped millions to remain morally pure? It's certainly had that affect on yours truly. And by the way, the teachings of the moral firewall are intended to inspire and inform members into obedience to the divine laws governing sexual purity, The "shame" part usually doesn't come in until after the teachings of the firewall have been ignored.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

My point is that if the moral firewall helps save a lot more people than it hurts, perhaps it would be wise to let the firewall remain in place, while simultaneously redoubling efforts to administer the gospel to help heal rape victims who did not lose their lives during the struggle with their attacker. Make sense now?

Why don't we just tell them the truth?

[Bikeemikey]

Are you unaware that the powerful LDS moral firewall on sexual purity has likely helped millions to remain morally pure? It's certainly had that effect on yours truly. And by the way, the teachings of the moral firewall are intended to inspire and inform members into obedience to the divine laws governing sexual purity, The "shame" part usually doesn't come in until after the teachings of the firewall have been ignored.

Conversations about morally purity & chastity are not relevant to conversations about rape.

[wenglund]

Conversations about morally purity & chastity are not relevant to conversations about rape.

In a myopic sense you may be right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Why don't we just tell them the truth?

And who is the arbiter truth that we turn to? I think the Church does tell the truth.

[teddyaware]

Conversations about morally purity & chastity are not relevant to conversations about rape.

In this conversation they do, because on this thread we're discussing the LDS teachings on sexual purity and chastity and the affect they have on rape victims. Start reading the thread fom the beginning and you'll get the drift.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Brenda]

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

In the Young Women's Personal Progress material ( https://www.lds.org/...virtue?lang=eng ) we find this statement:

Study the meaning and importance of chastity and virtue by reading Moroni 9:9

What is Moroni 9:9?

And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—

So we want our young women to understand that this thing which is most dear and precious above all things - this chastity and virtue - is something that a man can simply take from them against their will, right? That their value as chaste and virtuous daughters of God is at least in part dependent on their ability to avoid being raped? Do we really think that women have lost "that which is most precious and dear above all things" when they are taken advantage of (as Elizabeth Smart was)?

Perhaps you should reconsider your attitude.

Ben M.

I'm coming in late here and am sure your comment has been addressed, but I must add my 2 cents. I think YOU missed the point.

Do you honestly think the Church teaches what you said??? No one loses their virtue against their will. We have agency in this matter, and I suspect you know this. A rape victim's virtue is intact. But someone can be robbed of their innocence, and common sense says it is to THAT which Moroni refers.

I get so tired of people side-stepping common sense and jumping to bad conclusions to support their agenda against the Church. If this is not you, then I apologize for misreading your post.

[teddyaware]

Why don't we just tell them the truth?

The truth is that there are a few things worth dying for, and sexual purity is one of them. If sexual purity, preservation of life and freedom aren't worth dying for, then what is? homes, cars, bank accounts, vacation homes, etc...?

[Tacenda]

http://radiowest.kue...aching-chastity

A radio call in show with the following women. Thought you might want to listen, I've just begun listening and so far they're taking bits of Elizabeth's talk taken from the Human Trafficking conference and discussing. It goes right along with the discussion on this thread.

Gayle Ruzicka from Utah Eagle Forum, Joanna Brooks Religion Dispatches author of THE BOOK OF MORMON GIRL, JeaNette Goates Smith, author of UNSTEADY: WHAT EVERY PARENT ABSOLUTELY MUST KNOW ABOUT TEENAGE ROMANCE

Edited May 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

Are you unaware of how many girls and women experience molestation or rape?? And do we have new scripture about sacrificing those numbers to "help" others by shaming them into compliance?

The church does more than anyone else can do to help the victims of rape and molestation.

How do you think people should be taught about sexual sin?

Or are you one of those people who think that we should never teach that behavior is wrong for fear that someone might feel bad about it?

[Calm]

The church does more than anyone else can do to help the victims of rape and molestation.

How do you think people should be taught about sexual sin?

Or are you one of those people who think that we should never teach that behavior is wrong for fear that someone might feel bad about it?

I suspect Juliann believes that when sexual sin is being taught, that teachers should stick to what is actual doctrine in the Church and not throw in personal touches like the "chewed gum" analogy.

Notice she is pointing out that there is no scripture supporting the idea that we sacrifice those who have sinned or who have been raped to protect those who have not. She is stating we should keep to doctrine and scripture, not stray from it.

Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The Church isn't sacrificing anyone. Get a grip.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

She is not pointing out a problem with the Church, but with teddyaware's reasoning.

[Calm]

In this conversation they do, because on this thread we're discussing the LDS teachings on sexual purity and chastity and the affect they have on rape victims. Start reading the thread fom the beginning and you'll get the drift.

No, we are talking about how some people add to the doctrine by throwing in "chewed gum" analogies and ignoring how the Atonement actually works in one's life even for sexual sin.

[Danzo]

I suspect Juliann believes that when sexual sin is being taught, that teachers should stick to what is actual doctrine in the Church and not throw in personal touches like the "chewed gum" analogy.

The chewed gum analogy may not be the best, but what object lesson would you prefer?

[Calm]

The truth is that there are a few things worth dying for, and sexual purity is one of them. If sexual purity, preservation of life and freedom aren't worth dying for, then what is? homes, cars, bank accounts, vacation homes, etc...?

But one never has to die for sexual purity because in the case where death is one of the choices-rape-one's sexual purity is not at risk as one cannot be made impure by what is done to one, but only by what one does to oneself (see the scripture I quoted before).

In the cases where sexual purity is at risk, it is a matter of the person choosing whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to engaging in sexual sin, not a choice between life or death. To put it into the context of choosing death or sexual purity confuses sexual purity with rape...and thus leads to misunderstandings that one can lose one's chastity by being raped.

[Calm]

The chewed gum analogy may not be the best, but what object lesson would you prefer?

If one is going to use the chewed gum analogy, one should add the analogy that Christ can restore one to an unwrapped piece of gum (as I believe others including cinepro stated it) or as IIRC Thomas S. Monson used the nail in the board analogy...that sin may leave a hole in the board, but with the Atonement there are none...all the wounds, all the scars---even if intentionally selfinflicted---can be removed as if they ever existed.

The problem with most of those analogies in my experience (from what I have been told more than personal) is that too many of them don't follow the line of reasoning through to the very end of our doctrine, but stop midway before they get to the "good news" of the Gospel.

[wenglund]

She is not pointing out a problem with the Church, but with teddyaware's reasoning.

Having read through her posts on this thread, many of which weren't addressed to Ted, it is clear Juliann has a problem with the way young women are being taught about chastity in the Church. With that context in mind, I believe she was pointing out a problem with the Church. But, she can correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Perhaps kids these days are so fragile in their psyche or lacking the ability to synthesize, that each time a lesson is given that strongly discourages a particular sin, it should immediately be buffered with a qualify comment about the atonement. Evidently, even though beautiful lessons are given on repentance and forgiveness and mercy and the atonement, kids these days must not be able to carry those lessons in their mind when being taught about certain sins. It is as though there is a disconnect that prevents our youth from synthesizing lessons together.

This makes me wonder if our efforts to coddle and protect our youth from most any possible misunderstanding or hurt feelings, may actually be somewhat responsible for the disconnect. If we are constantly connecting the instructional dots for our youth, when will they learn to connect the dots for themselves?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-