Thank You, Brother Daniel Peterson, For Posting This Update On Elizabeth Smart And The Law Of Chastity

[Darren10]

As was brought to the attention here on Mormon Dialogue, Joanna Brooks cited Elizabeth Smart's "own words" to depict a highly negative spotlight on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As Brother peterson writes:

I’ve been puzzled, over recent days, by certain remarks attributed to Elizabeth Smart — remarks in which she seems to criticize, rather harshly, what she had been taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding chastity.

Supposedly, her church had taught her that young women who have had nonmarital sex — even coerced sex, in rape or child abuse — are like licked cupcakes, or already-chewed gum, or boards into which a nail has been driven and that can never be restored to their unmarred state. Consequently, having been raped by Brian David Mitchell, her abductor, she felt herself worthless. This, she supposedly said, is why she didn’t try to escape. Her church is responsible.

So far as I know, the "remaks" were made by Joanna Brooks 9either originating the negative LDS issue or perpetuating from other sources) who cited Smart during her (Smart's) speech at John Hopkins University regarding human trafficking. Like Brother Peterson, I was a bit dumbfounded as my upbringing in the LDS Church never lead me anywhere near believing that a person who was raped was worthless or undesirable. To the contrary, my LDS view of God above is that of mercy, pain, love, and unconditional acceptance of their personal worth before Him of any of his daughters who was raped during mortality.

Brother Peterson links his post to an article written by, if I'm not mistaken, Andrea Watcott, at "createwritebalance"'s website. Whatcott writes (bold mine):

I had been sent a video link from our social media specialist and was able to watch her speech in its entirety. And I did, several times. I was also sent a link to a brief from the Christian Science Monitor. I read through it and did my own google search.

I was confused. The reports that I was reading seemed to have come from a different forum, at the very least a different person. Yes, some of the quotes were the same, but her words had been taken grossly out of context.

So I watched the video again, just to be sure. You should watch it too.

After looking into the allegations of Elizabeth Smart not escaping her rapist due to a felling of unworthiness via the chastity standards set forth by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Whatcott reports:

Smart wasn’t suggesting that teaching abstinence had made her feel worthless after being raped, as some sources concluded.

Smart wasn’t saying that because of her religious teachings that she felt like a “chewed up piece of gum.” The gum analogy came from a school teacher (by the way). But again, that was stretched.

Many sources simply took a few quotes (particularly about the chewing gum) and built a story and idea around just that.

(snip)

I watched the video, several times.

The message that I gathered from the elegant Smart was the importance of educating children about human trafficking, teaching them to be prepared because parents won’t be able to be with their children every second of the day (or night), and also to instill in these children a strong sense of self-worth, so should they ever (heaven forbid) be trafficked they would have the strength to overcome.

Smart was raped. She felt worthless because of it. I don’t think she would have felt less worthless if her school teacher hadn’t taught that abstinence before marriage is ideal, or if her parents hadn’t taught her the sacredness of intimacy. In fact, it was her parents love and teachings that pulled her through her nine months in captivity.

She came to the realization that her parents would love her no matter what. No matter what had happened to her, or what she had been through, they would love her. And the hope of being reunited with her loving parents kept her going.

There was no hidden agenda about discontinuing abstinence instruction. Her message was one of hope. It was centered around the value of a soul, and how important it is that every child know their value.

YES!!! that is the LDS message. That no matter the extent of Elizabeth Smart's horrific ordeal being captive, she was of great worth and knew her parents would unconditionally love her and accept her.

Brotehr Peterson points out that Elizabeth Smart has recovered "remarkably well", served a full-time LDS mission in France and is sealed in the temple. Like Brother Peterson, I find this hardly evidence that her church rendered her a helpless victim of rape.

Frankly, I find Joanna Brooks, of which I have agreed many times regarding LDS issues, as an example of how certain feminist agenda can warp one's view to see things that do not exist. In this case, Brooks bore false witness against the LDS church.

Daniel Peterson's post: A Much-Needed Correction regarding Elizabeth Smart and Church Teachings Regarding Chastity, Abstinence, and Rape

createwritebalance link: Don’t believe everything you read in the news

Direct link to Elizabeth Smart's speech as already linked in one of my above citations: http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/elizabeth-smart-speaks-at-johns-hopkins-human-trafficking-forum-486.shtml#.UYhPJ7WG32u

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is why I see this as one topic that will bring heartache to Sisiter Smart, let her rest, and lost those who think they speak for her to repent.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Darren10]

Pa Pa;

I haven't had any desire to post on Elizabeth Smart previous to Joanna Brooks misguiding the public on how the LDS empowers young women through its standards of chastity; not weakens them; nor does it lead the, to become victims. By the way, did you notice that Elizabeth Smart herself is going around sharing her story and strengthening young women via LDS standards of chastity and family support? Joanna Brooks apparently has not. Probably because it doesn't fit her feminist agenda.

[Duncan]

Pa Pa;

I haven't had any desire to post on Elizabeth Smart previous to Joanna Brooks misguiding the public on how the LDS empowers young women through its standards of chastity; not weakens them; nor does it lead the, to become victims. By the way, did you notice that Elizabeth Smart herself is going around sharing her story and strengthening young women via LDS standards of chastity and family support? Joanna Brooks apparently has not. Probably because it doesn't fit her feminist agenda.

do you think there is any good that comes from teaching the various chewed gum analogies?

[Darren10]

do you think there is any good that comes from teaching the various chewed gum analogies?

I do actually but regarding Elizabeth Smart, the chewing gum analogy did not come from the LDS Church, nor did it have any affect on Elizabeth Smart according to any evidence available. What did have an affect on Elizabeth Smart was the unconditional love from her family and sense of self worth as a daughter of Heavenly Father. Those did and do come from the LDS Church. Joanna Brooks needs to get her facts in order before combating teachings and standards from the Church.

[Duncan]

I do actually but regarding Elizabeth Smart, the chewing gum analogy did not come from the LDS Church, nor did it have any affect on Elizabeth Smart according to any evidence available. What did have an affect on Elizabeth Smart was the unconditional love from her family and sense of self worth as a daughter of Heavenly Father. Those did and do come from the LDS Church. Joanna Brooks needs to get her facts in order before combating teachings and standards from the Church.

I get that but what good comes from it?

[Darren10]

I get that but what good comes from it?

If that's all a parent teaches his or her daughter, it may very well back fire but combined with unconditional love and acceptance, there is much value in teaching a child that promiscuity does lessen one's value and worth as per one's choices. Strengthening one's values comes by living according to God's commandments.

[Storm Rider]

Brooks appears to have turned a page and become a bit of a flake; creating issues/criticisms out of whole cloth. I wonder what is going on that would caused her to become "stupid". I don't use the term lightly, but when I see a bright individual begin to approach a topic that they supposedly know fairly well and begin to criticize without any basis or foundation it is stupid. It is deceitful. Makes me feel sorry for her because something must be going on that is not healthy.

[Libs]

There is nothing wrong with teaching chastity before marriage, but even Elizabeth scrunched her nose and shook her head at the teacher's analogy of "chewed up gum". She said, "no one should ever say that".

Nothing wrong with teaching chastity, as long as it is made perfectly clear that when a woman (child) is victimized/raped that she is not, in the least, at fault, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with her character or worthiness as a human being.

[Calm]

I think there is an inherent problem with the chewed gum analogy if only because it equates sex to a very minor and trivial action. I think it unwise to associate such a life altering and potential extremely damaging/edifying behaviour with something that is a minor pleasure that can be tossed away in the garbage and forgotten about. Even a fresh stick of gum has very, very little value and if that is what one thinks of chastity, then why wouldn't one trade it for something of more value?

Analogies are very useful, but one must be careful not to unintentionally create a connotation that isn't there. Gum, nails, cupcakes....in the long run they have no meaning. Better to find something that has meaning attached to it so that not only is there a 'gut' reaction like occurs with thinking about chewed gum, but also there is a deep fundamental reaction to the fresh stick of unchewed gum...something that says "I would like to keep that and treasure it", something that doesn't exist with the analogies I've seen used so far.

Perhaps an analogy using a pearl that takes year of care, attention and 'nurturing' to grow into something that is beautiful and desirable. Or a diamond that is formed through its resistance to pressure and heat (hmm...I am liking this one...)

Let's see where the diamond analogy goes.....even when flaws arise through a less than perfect resistance, a master (Christ) can take that flawed diamond and cut and polish it until it comes out looking more beautiful and of more value to its possessor than before.

Edited May 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

Brooks appears to have turned a page and become a bit of a flake; creating issues/criticisms out of whole cloth. I wonder what is going on that would caused her to become "stupid". I don't use the term lightly, but when I see a bright individual begin to approach a topic that they supposedly know fairly well and begin to criticize without any basis or foundation it is stupid. It is deceitful. Makes me feel sorry for her because something must be going on that is not healthy.

You pretty much summed up my sentiment regarding Joanna Brooks. She is a very smart individual and for several years I have probably agreed with her on Mormonism at least 90% of the time but to depict her own church as something which leads young women to victimhood is no small matter in my eyes. My view is that Brook's adherence to feminism has at least somewhat become her gospel.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

There is nothing wrong with teaching chastity before marriage, but even Elizabeth scrunched her nose and shook her head at the teacher's analogy of "chewed up gum". She said, "no one should ever say that".

While I disagree that 'no one should ever say that', I am glad you point out that this aalogy had little to no negative impact on Elizabeth Smart. It did not prevent her from running away from her capture as per Joanna Brook's suggestion.

Nothing wrong with teaching chastity, as long as it is made perfectly clear that when a woman (child) is victimized/raped that she is not, in the least, at fault, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with her character or worthiness as a human being.

Isn't that what the LDS church teaches already?

[Darren10]

I think there is an inherent problem with the chewed gum analogy if only because it equates sex to a very minor and trivial action. I think it unwise to associate such a life altering and potential extremely damaging/edifying behaviour with something that is a minor pleasure that can be tossed away in the garbage and forgotten about. Even a fresh stick of gum has very, very little value and if that is what one thinks of chastity, then why wouldn't one trade it for something of more value?

I would agree with you which is why I suggested earlier that giving this analogy needs be accompanied by an assurance from parents that the child is loved no mattr what and that is according to LDS teachings and standards and that is precisely the environment Elizabeth Smart grew up in. The LDS Church's standards of chastity helped Elizabeth Smart, not impeded her, during her captivity.

[Tacenda]

I would agree with you which is why I suggested earlier that giving this analogy needs be accompanied by an assurance from parents that the child is loved no mattr what and that is according to LDS teachings and standards and that is precisely the environment Elizabeth Smart grew up in. The LDS Church's standards of chastity helped Elizabeth Smart, not impeded her, during her captivity.

But it's plain to see that Elizabeth probably would have also felt more inclined to escape the situation had she not been taught certain things. That's why it's so important for her to speak out about the problem. I don't think she holds her upbringing and the "chewed gum" theory given her by "most likely" a LDS teacher in her school, totally blameless. She just needs to walk a fine line with it all. I think she will speak out all over and we will see that it's much more a problem than some see on here. Joanna Brooks is just speaking as she sees it, but isn't afraid to say it. To her it's one of those things that might hurt some feelings, but compare that to saving someone from a life of hell, then it's worth it.

[Senator]

While I disagree that 'no one should ever say that', I am glad you point out that this aalogy had little to no negative impact on Elizabeth Smart. It did not prevent her from running away from her capture as per Joanna Brook's suggestion.

So you disagree with Elizabeth on this point? Perhaps I'm not understanding you.

[Bikeemikey]

So now you are simply doing to Joanna brooks what you claim she did to Elizabeth smart.

Joanna brooks did not say what you say she said: at least by my reading.

[Bikeemikey]

I haven't had any desire to post on Elizabeth Smart previous to Joanna Brooks misguiding the public on how the LDS empowers young women through its standards of chastity; not weakens them; nor does it lead the, to become victims.

CFR that the Joanna Brooks said the churches teachings on chastity weakens women.

It is wonderful that you have created actual propaganda to combat perceived propaganda.

Can you see the great irony of this whole thread yet?

[Darren10]

But it's plain to see that Elizabeth probably would have also felt more inclined to escape the situation had she not been taught certain things.

According to my main post, that is aqbsolutely untrue. There is no evidence anywhere that she remained captive and chose not to run away because of LDS teachings or extra LDS teaches as per her school teacher's 'chewing gum' analogy. If anything, LDS teachers gave her much strength and hope. There is no indication anywhere, especially not from Elizabeth Smart's own words, that she decided to remain captive because of her Mormon standards of chastity. If anything, her Mormon background offered her hope and knowledge that she was a daughter of God who has immense worth and knew her earthly parents had unconditional ove for her. That kept her going.

Joanna Brooks is just speaking as she sees it, but isn't afraid to say it.

I've no inherent problem wth people speaking as they see it just that what Joanna Brooks sees is fantasy and leads to false accusations, in this case, a very serious one, against the LDS Church.

[Bikeemikey]

If that's all a parent teaches his or her daughter, it may very well back fire but combined with unconditional love and acceptance, there is much value in teaching a child that promiscuity does lessen one's value and worth as per one's choices. Strengthening one's values comes by living according to God's commandments.

But for good to come from the analogy the unconditional love + chewed gum combo would have to be better than unconditional love alone. Are you saying that is the case?

We can teach about promiscuity and chastity without examples like chewed gum.

[Bikeemikey]

There is nothing wrong with teaching chastity before marriage, but even Elizabeth scrunched her nose and shook her head at the teacher's analogy of "chewed up gum". She said, "no one should ever say that".

Nothing wrong with teaching chastity, as long as it is made perfectly clear that when a woman (child) is victimized/raped that she is not, in the least, at fault, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with her character or worthiness as a human being.

Great post... That was also a good summary of Joanna Brooks article.

[Bikeemikey]

You pretty much summed up my sentiment regarding Joanna Brooks. She is a very smart individual and for several years I have probably agreed with her on Mormonism at least 90% of the time but to depict her own church as something which leads young women to victimhood is no small matter in my eyes. My view is that Brook's adherence to feminism has at least somewhat become her gospel.

I agree to with your sentiments... Joanna Brooks however did not do what you are saying she did.

This whole thread is a straw man sham.

[Darren10]

So you disagree with Elizabeth on this point? Perhaps I'm not understanding you.

I disagree with anyone who says they should never use the 'chewing gum' analogy. I'll say that as a parent I've never used suach an analogy with my daughters but in fact have told them (the older one more so than the younger one only due to age) and my sons that anyone who inappropriately touches them is not their fault and that their mom and dad will always love them and protect them. But the analogy of the 'chewing gum' is not inherently bad. I've no problem telling my sons or daughters that they will deminish their personal value / worth if they make immoral choices and use a chewing gum analogy myself.

[Tacenda]

According to my main post, that is aqbsolutely untrue. There is no evidence anywhere that she remained captive and chose not to run away because of LDS teachings or extra LDS teaches as per her school teacher's 'chewing gum' analogy. If anything, LDS teachers gave her much strength and hope. There is no indication anywhere, especially not from Elizabeth Smart's own words, that she decided to remain captive because of her Mormon standards of chastity. If anything, her Mormon background offered her hope and knowledge that she was a daughter of God who has immense worth and knew her earthly parents had unconditional ove for her. That kept her going.

I've no inherent problem wth people speaking as they see it just that what Joanna Brooks sees is fantasy and leads to false accusations, in this case, a very serious one, against the LDS Church.

After reading this article, I hope you will open your eyes a little. I've bolded some for you. Also, you seem to think Joanna is speaking out against the church. No it's against the people and traditions. People are ignorant sometimes, people that run the church are even ignorant sometimes. The church is a building. God is basically all we should be worried about, and his children. Not excusing traditions because it might make the church look bad.

http://fox13now.com/2013/05/06/elizabeth-smart-i-felt-like-a-chewed-up-piece-of-gum/

SALT LAKE CITY – Elizabeth Smart spoke at Johns Hopkins University last Wednesday, sparking conversation about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and sex education.

Are the LDS faith and sex education in Utah the reasons why Elizabeth Smart didn’t scream for help or break free from her captor, Brian David Mitchell?

Smart said she felt dirty and filthy after being raped and like a chewed-up piece of gum. She made the comments during a speech about human trafficking at Johns Hopkins University last Wednesday.

“I remember in school one time I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence and she said, ‘Imagine you’re a stick of gum and when you engage in sex, that’s like being chewed. And then if you do that lots of times, you’re going to be become an old piece of gum and who’s going to want you after that,’” said Smart.

Smart was 14 years old when she was kidnapped, raped and held captive in 2002. More than a decade later, Smart says people still ask her questions.

“One of the questions that is most commonly asked of me, ‘Well why didn’t you run away, why didn’t you yell, why didn’t you scream?’”

During her speech, Smart said “I was raised in a very religious household one that taught that sex was something special that only happened between a husband and a wife who loved each other, and that’s the way I had been raised and that’s what I had been determined to follow that when I got married then and only then would I engage in sex and so for that first rape I felt crushed, I felt so dirty and so filthy I understand so easily why someone wouldn’t run because of that alone.”

Edited May 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[Senator]

I disagree with anyone who says they should never use the 'chewing gum' analogy.

Then you disagree with Elizabeth. For that is exactly what she said.

[Senator]

According to my main post, that is aqbsolutely untrue. There is no evidence anywhere that she remained captive and chose not to run away because of LDS teachings or extra LDS teaches as per her school teacher's 'chewing gum' analogy. If anything, LDS teachers gave her much strength and hope. There is no indication anywhere, especially not from Elizabeth Smart's own words, that she decided to remain captive because of her Mormon standards of chastity. If anything, her Mormon background offered her hope and knowledge that she was a daughter of God who has immense worth and knew her earthly parents had unconditional ove for her. That kept her going.

Not quite. She gave two reasons why she didn't run. 1) Fear 2) Feelings of worthlessness, filthiness. The chewing gum analogy was given as an example of what was not helpful, or in fact what aided in her feelings of worthlessness. What gave her hope and the courage to survive was the thought of the unconditional love that she knew her parents had for her, and her eventual reuniting with them.