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

[Darren10]

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.

Here's the title of the article Joanna Brooks wrote: Traditional Mormon Sexual Purity Lesson Contributed to Captivity, Elizabeth Smart Tells University Audience. Nothing in that title remotely suggests that the LDS church is not responsible for Elizabeth Smart's captivity and her refusal to run away. In fact, the title in and of itself does just the opposite. It links Elizabeth Smart's captivity to LDS standards of chastity.

Here's what Brooks writes:

We wondered, just like everyone else did: why didn’t Elizabeth Smart run? There she was, wandering downtown Salt Lake City, right in our midst, the veiled captive of a madman.

But we also recognized something in that paralysis, that deadly quiet. We recognized something of ourselves.

Now, Elizabeth Smart, continuing her elegant and courageous adult self-realization, tells an audience at a Johns Hopkins University event on human trafficking that a very traditional Mormon culture object lesson on sexual purity contributed decisively to the paralysis that kept her a captive.

She recalls that a teacher once held up a chewed up piece of used chewing gum and compared it to a young woman who lost her virginity. And after surviving sexual assault during her captivity, Smart recalls:

“I thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum, you throw it away.’ And that’s how easy it is to feel like you know longer have worth, you know longer have value,” Smart said. “Why would it even be worth screaming out? Why would it even make a difference if you are rescued? Your life still has no value.”

In my class, it wasn’t chewing gum. It was the rose damaged by being passed around the circle--its petals browned and limp. Other Mormon women remember mangled cupcakes and donuts. Who, after all, would want to actually eat the donut that had been passed around?

And we laugh about it, these days, we do. Because (we hope) times are changing. We celebrate new official LDS Church curriculum for Mormon young women that eradicates the old chastity object lessons, even as we know that clearing them from Mormon culture will take much, much longer. And Mormon feminists raise their voices (here and here) about ways we’re still not doing young women in Mormonism many favors in the way we teach sexuality and particularly in a hyper-emphasis on modesty in dress that has emerged in many Mormon communities.

And then we read Elizabeth Smart, and we find ourselves once again in that place, that place of deadly stillness, that paralysis, that we lived in during those weeks in late spring 2002. When we wondered why she couldn’t just run. But inside we already knew.

In the bold portion, which are mine, Brooks clearly links Smart's captivity to "official LDS Church...object lessons" regarding chastity. There's no "strawman" presented here, sir. Except, perhaps, your own.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Questing Beast]

If I was a Mod I'd lock this thread, as redundant, since this was hashed to smithereens on the other "Elizabeth Smart" thread just last week, and why should there need to be another one?...

[Darren10]

I felt so dirty and so filthy I understand so easily why someone wouldn’t run because of that alone.”

As I've said before, regarding the 'chewing gum' analogy, "that alone" can be damaging. hwever, in this case, she was speaking about being raped being the cause of not leaving.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

If I was a Mod I'd lock this thread, as redundant, since this was hashed to smithereens on the other "Elizabeth Smart" thread just last week, and why should there need to be another one?...

New updates have been provided regarding Elizabeth Smart and Joanna Brook's highly irresponsible application of Smart's words to the LDS church. If you don't like this thread then don't come back.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

No, she did not link the chewing gum analogy to why *she* did not run. She did feel dirty from the rape itself and frankly, how could she not? I totally empathize with that pain but the chewing gum analogy is NOT a reason *she* did not run. To the contrary, her knowledge of dbeing a daughter of God and the love of her parents, both of which are very much in harmony with LDS teachings, undeniably gave her hope.

[Tacenda]

No, she did not link the chewing gum analogy to why *she* did not run. She did feel dirty from the rape itself and frankly, how could she not? I totally empathize with that pain but the chewing gum analogy is NOT a reason *she* did not run. To the contrary, her knowledge of dbeing a daughter of God and the love of her parents, both of which are very much in harmony with LDS teachings, undeniably gave her hope.

You choose to see only what you want and leave out what you don't want. If only to deny Elizabeth her words. Please don't deemphasize what her words say just to protect the church. Which doesn't need protection because it didn't start it, the people did, and their extreme phobia with all things sexual.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Senator,

While I think that Darren10 is actually conducting a very dishonest thread that is doing what he claimed Joanna Brooks has done (that is take things out of context and twist them in an effort to demonize someone of something), we all need to be careful about this gum quote.

For starters it appears that the gum quote could not have contributed to her decisions regarding escape as it happened after she was found. Her comment at hearing that analogy was, "that is me".

The analogy is an example of something that can erode people's sense of worth which is never appropriate: whether people have been voluntarily promiscuous or the victims of rape and abuse, the gospel is about helping people find their worth. Examples that drive away people's sense of worth should not be used.

[Darren10]

You choose to see only what you want and leave out what you don't want.

Huh???

[Darren10]

While I think that Darren10 is actually conducting a very dishonest thread

Glad to make some waves, sir. But do note that Joanna Brooks did precisely what I say she did. She connected Smart's captivity to LDS "official" teachings of "object lessons".

we all need to be careful about this gum quote.

Agreed.

For starters it appears that the gum quote could not have contributed to her decisions regarding escape as it happened after she was found. Her comment at hearing that analogy was, "that is me".

I find that accurate.

The analogy is an example of something that can erode people's sense of worth which is never appropriate: whether people have been voluntarily promiscuous or the victims of rape and abuse, the gospel is about helping people find their worth. Examples that drive away people's sense of worth should not be used.

Who's arguing against that? Though I do not find the 'chewing gum' analogy inherently wrong, it does have meirt, only it should not be used alone, especially for situations which one has been violated.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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

Yes, you are correct. When you ask if I disagree and I say, "yes, I disagree" than it does mean I disagree. You are perceptive, sir.

[Tacenda]

Senator, on 13 May 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

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

Yes, you are correct. When you ask if I disagree and I say, "yes, I disagree" than it does mean I disagree. You are perceptive, sir.

Tacenda, on 13 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

You choose to see only what you want and leave out what you don't want.

Huh???

Darren, I think you need to look inward right now. You are letting your feelings affect fact.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bikeemikey]

Here's the title of the article Joanna Brooks wrote: Traditional Mormon Sexual Purity Lesson Contributed to Captivity, Elizabeth Smart Tells University Audience. Nothing in that title remotely suggests that the LDS church is not responsible for Elizabeth Smart's captivity and her refusal to run away. In fact, the title in and of itself does just the opposite. It links Elizabeth Smart's captivity to LDS standards of chastity.

Here's what Brooks writes:

In the bold portion, which are mine, Brooks clearly links Smart's captivity to "official LDS Church...object lessons" regarding chastity. There's no "strawman" presented here, sir. Except, perhaps, your own.

Your focus is far to narrow: here is her second post of the topic:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/7104/did_mormon_morality_teachings_really_make_it_harder_for_elizabeth_smart_to_run/

This post came after the one you have referenced and is obviously the result of further information on the subject.

Yes her post title was bad for the May 6th post... It was also based on bad research... The gum analogy appears to have come after Smart was found and back in school.

However, her article it self was much less aggressive than the title (as has already been covered Brooks may not have been solely responsible for the title).

I am sure brooks is embarrassed about this post as it was based on errors and bad research. However, many of her comments including the ones you so kindly highlighted are correct.

We have changed the official teaching guidelines - which is a compliment of the institution- though for our cultural habits may take longer to change... Which seems obvious.

[Bikeemikey]

Glad to make some waves, sir. But do note that Joanna Brooks did precisely what I say she did. She connected Smart's captivity to LDS "official" teachings of "object lessons".

Brooks can be reasonably criticized for having a terrible post title. That is really about it.

The content of the post did not even match the title itself.

The Joanna Brooks you are attacking is still a straw man you have constructed through narrow selection.

It should always be a warning sign when the opening post contains links to all the criticism of the original offending articles but no link to the articles themselves.

This is a good example of Joanna Brooks being caught out by limited research and bad assumptions... Call her out for it and move on. Turning this into an all out war against her for defaming the church is just silly and beyond the scope of the evidence at hand.

[Senator]

No, she did not link the chewing gum analogy to why *she* did not run. She did feel dirty from the rape itself and frankly, how could she not? I totally empathize with that pain but the chewing gum analogy is NOT a reason *she* did not run.

Ok, I can see this is at a place of "Yes, she did. No, she didn't". So I can leave it at a simple disagreement.

[Darren10]

Darren, I think you need to look inward right now. You are letting your feelings affect fact.

Now I'm completely lost.

[Tacenda]

I think Elizabeth is now understanding the "why", in why she didn't bolt or run, at first it was and may still be, the fear that her captors would hurt her family. But now she is mature and far enough ahead of what happened to her that she is now able to address it further and this is just another layering answer, whether we like it or not. But I do agree, her upbringing and strong family ties did save her also. In one news article I read, it said, Elizabeth was surrounded by cops all the time, but all it took was one cop to ask if she was Elizabeth Smart, to get her to admit who she was.

ETA:

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/elizabeth-smart-shares-survival-story-advocates-child-empowerment-in-houston/article_c157c072-d09f-5351-b267-f6c6161e3a2a.html

The article above is recent enough and after the speech at the college that it gives another light. I will admit I concentrated too much on the theory Joanna strongly suggested but see there are many layers to the story. It's not black and white.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[Darren10]

Your focus is far to narrow: here is her second post of the topic:

http://www.religiond...h_smart_to_run/

This post came after the one you have referenced and is obviously the result of further information on the subject.

Yes her post title was bad for the May 6th post... It was also based on bad research... The gum analogy appears to have come after Smart was found and back in school.

However, her article it self was much less aggressive than the title (as has already been covered Brooks may not have been solely responsible for the title).

I am sure brooks is embarrassed about this post as it was based on errors and bad research. However, many of her comments including the ones you so kindly highlighted are correct.

We have changed the official teaching guidelines - which is a compliment of the institution- though for our cultural habits may take longer to change... Which seems obvious.

Here's from your link:

Fringe it is not. This post at a Mormon women’s blog (and its many comments) document that sexual morality object lessons featuring spent chewing gum, or molested flowers, or damaged cupcakes have indeed been taught in Mormon homes, on Sundays, and in Mormon-saturated cultural contexts. Even Salt Lake City middle schools like the one Elizabeth Smart attended.

Mind you, such lessons are nowhere in the official sex education curriculum of the state of Utah.

Nor are they to be found in the current handbooks or youth instructional manuals of the LDS Church.

I 100% agree with that. I also agree that the analogies with molested fowers and chewed gum may be common place with LDS homes though I'd qualify that as more Utah centric LDS homes (and admittedly do so without statistics or any insight outside a hunch). But what she writes in this latest link is different than what she wrote earlier:

And we laugh about it, these days, we do. Because (we hope) times are changing. We celebrate new official LDS Church curriculum for Mormon young women that eradicates the old chastity object lessons, even as we know that clearing them from Mormon culture will take much, much longer. And Mormon feminists raise their voices (here and here) about ways we’re still not doing young women in Mormonism many favors in the way we teach sexuality and particularly in a hyper-emphasis on modesty in dress that has emerged in many Mormon communities.

So my first citation is what Brooks said after my second citation. That means she originally linked Elizabeth Smart's reluctance to run to official LDS standards of chastity but then she later writes that the standards she (Brooks) says kept Smart captive are not in the official LDS cirriculum. The former I chastize Brooks for while the latter I agree with. (I hardly think I'm the only one sharing this feedback and I would not be surprised if Brooks got wind of it all).

Now it also seems you are in agreement with me regarding Bropok's original statements being "bad" though I have said they were highly irresponsible and I stck to that. To suggest that the LDS Church is in any way responsible for prolognuing Elizabeth Smart's sexual captivity is deplorable. To suggest in Brook's defense that she feels bad ("embarrassed") for her original irresponsibility is, unfortunately, conjectorial unless she herself states as much. She is fully responsible for her original article and it is not wrong or in any way erroneous to hold her accountable for her words.

As for the "correctness" of her words from her original article, I agree what I highlighted are correct in the sense that the words she used were constructed to hint that the LDS official standards of sexual purity were at least in part, if not fully, responsible for resulting in Smart's decision not to run away from her sexual capture. If you suggest what I highlighted was correct meaning that they do not link Smart's captivity to LDS official teachings governing chastity than I full heartedly disagree with you.

[Darren10]

Brooks can be reasonably criticized for having a terrible post title. That is really about it.

The content of the post did not even match the title itself.

The Joanna Brooks you are attacking is still a straw man you have constructed through narrow selection.

It should always be a warning sign when the opening post contains links to all the criticism of the original offending articles but no link to the articles themselves.

This is a good example of Joanna Brooks being caught out by limited research and bad assumptions... Call her out for it and move on. Turning this into an all out war against her for defaming the church is just silly and beyond the scope of the evidence at hand.

The title was libel but the content not? Huh? Here's the title again: Traditional Mormon Sexual Purity Lesson Contributed to Captivity, Elizabeth Smart Tells University Audience

Here again is the portion I cited: "And we laugh about it, these days, we do. Because (we hope) times are changing. We celebrate new official LDS Church curriculum for Mormon young women that eradicates the old chastity object lessons, even as we know that clearing them from Mormon culture will take much, much longer. And Mormon feminists raise their voices (here and here) about ways we’re still not doing young women in Mormonism many favors in the way we teach sexuality and particularly in a hyper-emphasis on modesty in dress that has emerged in many Mormon communities." There is an undeniable connection between the title and the content of her post. The title suggest a "traditional" Mormon teaching to an official teaching of the LDS Church. In fact I'd say the title is bad but things get worse from her article. She moved from a teaching common in LDS homes to the official LDS Church teachings for having responsibility in keeping Smart a sexual slave.

I'm also baffled from your accusation that my opening post contained no link to original sources. What are you talking about? Furthermore I make no straw man. I use Joanna Brook's words themselves as my source of criticism. I cite them and link to them. If she wants to correct her previous works, than fine but her latter writings contradict her former and it is the former which I criticize; not the latter. My assumptions are sound and based on prseicely what she wrote. That she latter wrote against her original writings is fine by me and I'm glad she did as much.

[Tacenda]

The title was libel but the content not? Huh? Here's the title again: Traditional Mormon Sexual Purity Lesson Contributed to Captivity, Elizabeth Smart Tells University Audience

Here again is the portion I cited: "And we laugh about it, these days, we do. Because (we hope) times are changing. We celebrate new official LDS Church curriculum for Mormon young women that eradicates the old chastity object lessons, even as we know that clearing them from Mormon culture will take much, much longer. And Mormon feminists raise their voices (here and here) about ways we’re still not doing young women in Mormonism many favors in the way we teach sexuality and particularly in a hyper-emphasis on modesty in dress that has emerged in many Mormon communities." There is an undeniable connection between the title and the content of her post. The title suggest a "traditional" Mormon teaching to an official teaching of the LDS Church. In fact I'd say the title is bad but things get worse from her article. She moved from a teaching common in LDS homes to the official LDS Church teachings for having responsibility in keeping Smart a sexual slave.

I'm also baffled from your accusation that my opening post contained no link to original sources. What are you talking about? Furthermore I make no straw man. I use Joanna Brook's words themselves as my source of criticism. I cite them and link to them. If she wants to correct her previous works, than fine but her latter writings contradict her former and it is the former which I criticize; not the latter. My assumptions are sound and based on prseicely what she wrote. That she latter wrote against her original writings is fine by me and I'm glad she did as much.

But you seem to disagree with Elizabeth herself and won't use her words themselves!!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

I understand, I just see her being further victimized by the possibility that others might continue it elsewhere. But remember it is "her story", not ours. You can already see what happens when others try to get inside her head and read them trough a prism other than her own.

[Darren10]

Tacenda #41;

Thank you for your remarks. Here's from your link:

As Mitchell ordered Smart to crawl on her hands and knees through a narrow streambed, she waited for God to save her.

“I kept thinking if God can flood the earth and part the Red Sea for Moses … if he can perform all these miracles, I know he can provide an escape for me. I kept looking and praying, but I didn’t see an opening or an escape route. I had to keep going,” Smart said.

Here she expresses faith in God and said she did not escape because she found no means for escaping. Here's another porition from the same link:

One of Smart’s biggest fears during her captivity was forgetting what her family’s voices sounded like. As she filled her thoughts with her mother’s voice, she remembered something she had told her in a more innocent moment of shame, when she was excluded from an invitation to a popular girl’s party.

“There are really only two opinions that matter: the first one is God’s … He will never turn his back on you … and the second person’s opinion is mine. And I will always, always love you. And nothing can ever change that.”

“And I realized that she was right, and everything that happened to me didn’t matter. She would still love me. Because I had something worth living for that I knew would never change, I was able to decide that it doesn’t matter what it is, I would deal with it. I will do whatever it takes to survive.”

Here again she invokes faith in God, trust in God, and a knowledge that God loved her as well as her parents. She also credits this knowledge tothe teachings of her parents. Then there's this:

One day Smart decided to try her hand at manipulating Mitchell, and told him that she had a feeling that God wanted her to go back to Salt Lake City. She implored him to speak to God about the matter. This must have stroked his ego, she said, because they did return to Utah, which turned out to be the escape for which she had been praying.

“We were walking up State Street through the heart of downtown Salt Lake … when all of a sudden a police car pulled up. And then another one. And then another one. “They were surrounded by police. Mitchell and Barzee had threatened to kill her or her family if she didn’t pretend to be their daughter, so at first she answered as she was instructed. Police decided to question her separately. For a while, she continued to lie in order to protect her family, until one of the officers looked at her and asked the life-saving question: “Are you Elizabeth Smart?”

Smart was reunited with her family shortly after. Speaking to her mother in a police car with her father was “just how [she] imagined Heaven to be.”

Here I read that Elizabeth Smarti *did escape* via manipulating her capture.

Joanna brooks did the LDS Church and all her readers an hge diservice by even suggesting that the LDS Church and Mormon "traditional teachings" caused her to remain captive.

[Darren10]

But you seem to disagree with Elizabeth herself

Only to the extent that the 'chewing gum' analogy should never be used.

and won't use her words themselves!!

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I understand, I just see her being further victimized by the possibility that others might continue it elsewhere. But remember it is "her story", not ours. You can already see what happens when others try to get inside her head and read them trough a prism other than her own.

I do appreciate your input.

[EllenMaksoud]

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:

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):

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:

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....ml#.UYhPJ7WG32u

Draging Elizabeth Smart into any conversation based upon her suffering is satanic and evil. When someone has been through that sort of thing, they should be given lots of love, peace and allowed to forget, in as much as is possible.

I'm not saying what I experienced, but the constant news and mastification on the Ohio travesty has dragged me into a very dangerous place. Our minds can only handle so much and I do not think that Heavenly Father would object if we have to take extreme measures to make the voices and sadness stop.

[Tacenda]

Only to the extent that the 'chewing gum' analogy should never be used.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

I think we shouldn't disregard that Elizabeth brought up the "chewed up gum" analogy in the first place, didn't she? How can you leave out that componet? She said it because it affected her. And to your posts, her strong upbringing (LDS and other things) and her strong family ties also affected her and sustained her throughout. But it's a dichotomy also, the thought in her head that she was a used up piece of gum may have hindered her to get help sooner. For quite awhile she felt bad about herself. Maybe it's a girl thing, to be emotional and have many variables.