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

[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.

On second thought, I take back my sympathy towards Brooks. When I speed post I frequently miss important things. Here's from your link:

Feminist Mormon Housewives blog founder Lisa Butterworth has pointed out other problematic current practices, including required confession of sexual sins by young women to adult male clerical leaders in private one-on-one settings and a renewed emphasis on the teaching of modesty that tends to place greater responsibility for sexual purity on the dress choices of young women while demeaningly constructing young men as helplessly hypersexual.

She still attacks the official LDS Church teachings as responsible for relegating young youmen as sex slaves. Brooks even seems to advocate the banning of confession to a bishop? Good grief!!!

[Darren10]

Draging Elizabeth Smart into any conversation based upon her suffering is satanic and evil.

Then why did Joanna Brooks? This thread has much more to do about her than Smart.

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.

Who's denying Elizabeth Smart love and allowing her to forget. She has chosen to tell her story to help others and how is this thread any different?

[Darren10]

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.

I have said that it was NOT a reason she remained captive and chose not to run away. Nobody, especially myself, has ignored her words on the 'chewing gum'.

the thought in her head that she was a used up piece of gum may have hindered her to get help sooner.

When has she ever said any such thing?

For quite awhile she felt bad about herself. Maybe it's a girl thing, to be emotional and have many variables.

Oh, it's a boy thing too. Believe me. We feel bad about ourselves as well.

[why me]

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.

My impression is that Joanna has an audience now and she needs to find something to write about....usually over women's issues. However, because she needs to find topics that are church related she can overstep her own bounds, as in this case. Also, she seems to be in the more critical mode when discussing the church. This is unfortunate. Maybe she is concerned that if she would write about something positive, she would lose her audience and following.

[Darren10]

why me;

I think it goes beyond that. I think her connection to feminism has now become a gospel in and of itself with Joanna Brooks. Suggesting that sexual sins committed by a young woman does not require confession with an adult male, ergo; young women do not have to confess to thier bishops. Man, talk about a slapdown of the priesthood order...sheesh!!!

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

It is not just a matter of a bad post title. Nor is the article itself “much less aggressive” than the title. It is actually far more aggressive. The title “merely” claims that she said that the “lesson” “contributed to [her] captivity. The article, itself, claims that she said that it “contributed decisively.”

This claim was not just one of the article’s many points. It was Brooks’ introductory “thesis statement” which she developed at some length, and from which her article derived most of its eloquence and impact.

We wondered.

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.

[emphasis added]

“Contributed decisively to the paralysis that kept her a captive?” How else can one interpret this other than as an assertion that Elizabeth Smart would have been able to escape her rapist sooner, had it not been for her “Mormon culture?”

Now it turns out that this “Mormon lesson” not only didn’t “contribute decisively” to Elizabeth Smart’s captivity -- it didn’t contribute at all. And why? Because, as you admit, it appears that she didn’t even hear this “lesson” until after her captivity.

Shameful.

BTW, I agree that the “chewing gum lesson” and its variants can be harmful, are (at best) theologically problematic, and should not be taught. But that should be the subject of a different thread.

[Darren10]

sleeper cell;

Excellent analysis.

[USU78]

Not quite. She gave two reasons why she didn't run. 1) Fear 2) Feelings of worthlessness, filthiness.

No she didn't. She 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.

She said she could easily understand, given the violation and the feelings it engendered in her, that someone else might fail to leave based upon those feelings and nothing else. She did not say she didn't escape or cry out because she felt "dirty and [] filthy." It was the, as far as she could tell, quite credible threats of death/serious injury to her or her family members that kept her on the farm.

[Darren10]

USU78;

Good eye there.

[cinepro]

It is not just a matter of a bad post title. Nor is the article itself “much less aggressive” than the title. It is actually far more aggressive. The title “merely” claims that she said that the “lesson” “contributed to [her] captivity. The article, itself, claims that she said that it “contributed decisively.”

This whole question rises from the fact that during her captivity, Elizabeth wasn't chained in a basement somewhere, but was actually taken out in public and into situations where she could have easily alerted others to her predicament. So the natural question is why she would remain quiet?

“Contributed decisively to the paralysis that kept her a captive?” How else can one interpret this other than as an assertion that Elizabeth Smart would have been able to escape her rapist sooner, had it not been for her “Mormon culture?”

Now it turns out that this “Mormon lesson” not only didn’t “contribute decisively” to Elizabeth Smart’s captivity -- it didn’t contribute at all. And why? Because, as you admit, it appears that she didn’t even hear this “lesson” until after her captivity.

Shameful.

I'm not sure you're reading Elizabeth's comment correctly. Here is what she said:

I remember in school one time, I had a teacher who was talking about abstinence,” Smart told the panel. “And she said, ‘Imagine you’re a stick of gum. When you engage in sex, that’s like getting chewed. And if you do that lots of times, you’re going to become an old piece of gum, and who is going to want you after that?’ Well, that’s terrible. No one should ever say that. But for me, I thought, ‘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 you no longer have worth. Your life no longer has value.”

I think it's pretty clear that she had heard that analogy before her kidnapping, and those thoughts were going through her head during her captivity.

Obviously, there is no "good" way to react to being kidnapped and sexually assaulted. And I don't expect any young teenage girl who has been separated from her friends and family to have the mental and spiritual strength to deal with something like that on their own. So even if Elizabeth had been given the most positive and affirming lessons about chastity and fully understood every moral and spiritual aspect of her predicament, I'm not sure she would have felt much better.

But that being said, we have to acknowledge that in spite of whatever spin Brooks or "feminists" or other people might put on it, Elizabeth has clearly explained her experience and understanding from that time in her life, and to ignore that is a huge insult to her.

Edited May 13, 2013 by cinepro

[Bikeemikey]

This whole question rises from the fact that during her captivity, Elizabeth wasn't chained in a basement somewhere, but was actually taken out in public and into situations where she could have easily alerted others to her predicament. So the natural question is why she would remain quiet?

I'm not sure you're reading Elizabeth's comment correctly. Here is what she said:

I think it's pretty clear that she had heard that analogy before her kidnapping, and those thoughts were going through her head during her captivity.

Obviously, there is no "good" way to react to being kidnapped and sexually assaulted. And I don't expect any young teenage girl who has been separated from her friends and family to have the mental and spiritual strength to deal with something like that on their own. So even if Elizabeth had been given the most positive and affirming lessons about chastity and fully understood every moral and spiritual aspect of her predicament, I'm not sure she would have felt much better.

But that being said, we have to acknowledge that in spite of whatever spin Brooks or "feminists" or other people might put on it, Elizabeth has clearly explained her experience and understanding from that time in her life, and to ignore that is a huge insult to her.

In the video and in the transcript I read her to have had that response to the analogy during a class that occurred after she was found.

What are you seeing about the quote that makes it appear she had the experience before her abduction?

Cheers.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Maestrophil]

In my opinion, the problem with the chewed gum analogy in general is that is has no element of the atonement in it.

We are told that when we repent our sins, though scarlet red, will be made white and pure - or that we will be made white and pure from the stains of sin through Christ. So where is the part where the gum is made desirable, or the nail holes are repaired, or the cupcake is sterilized and re-frosted?

If my worth were determined by my flaws without the cleansing of the atonement, I would wake up every day depressed indeed. :-)

On a side note... I feel teaching chastity in the chewed gum manner hurts more than the person who makes poor choices. I have (and do) struggled for years because while I kept the law of chastity before marriage, I married someone who did not. Because of the way I internalized my teachings about violating the law of chastity with diminished value, I was crushed and hurt more than I needed to be that my wife had not waited and I did. And have felt even slighted sometimes. I have had to learn over the years that the atonement is sufficient to render the impure, pure.

So now I still teach chastity to my children as VERY sacred and important, but add that the atonement is there for those who fall - perhaps some people are afraid adding this part will implicitly provide a "loophole" or excuse for people?

[rongo]

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

There absolutely can be. I've never used the variant that seems to be talked about here (i.e., if you have sex, willingly or unwillingly, you are like gum that's been chewed).

I'm a school teacher, and gospel topics come up because the kids know I'm Mormon. While I don't go out of my way to initiate discussion, I answer questions that are asked --- despite some people's belief that teachers can't answer questions that are asked of them. Teenagers are fascinated by our official Church standards (cf. For the Strength of Youth), and they have sincere questions about them. When questions about chastity come up and are accompanied with worldly philosophy as a counter (i.e., our archaic standards are harmful, we know better now, etc.), I have found my version of the gum analogy to be extremely effective. An accurate.

Take a piece of chewing gum and unwrap it. Pass around the stick of gum (without the wrapper), and tell people to look very closely at it. They will be asked questions about it, and should examine it very closely. When the piece of gum has made it to the last person, take out another piece of gum, but with the wrapper on it. Ask the student holding the gum which piece she would like: the piece she's holding (without the wrapper), or this piece? She will want the one with the wrapper on it. Ask why. And the kids get the point: because it has stayed in the wrapper, and wasn't examined and handled by the whole class.

This has been very effective, even among groups of students who almost universally are not and have not been living Church standards (at an alternative high school, for example ---- with students up to age 23 who have washed out of the system or are on prison release with ankle monitoring). In a discussion of why Mormons believe that sex should wait until after marriage, even those who haven't lived by that can see where we're coming from, and intellectually agree with and respect that, even if they themselves don't want to live that way.

[cinepro]

In the video and in the transcript I read her to have had that response to the analogy during a class that occurred after she was found.

What are you seeing about the quote that makes it appear she had the experience before her abduction?

Cheers.

She talks about the "chewed gum" analogy and its effect on her thought process, and includes:

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 no longer have worth, you no longer have value. 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.

That sounds like her thoughts during captivity, not as a result of hearing something after she was rescued.

I've also seen the "chewed gum" teaching attributed to her middle school teacher, and she was in middle school at the time of her abduction; I don't know if she returned to that school after her rescue.

She does also talk about knowing that her parents would always love her, and she was determined to be reunited with them.

Edited May 13, 2013 by cinepro

[Darren10]

But that being said, we have to acknowledge that in spite of whatever spin Brooks or "feminists" or other people might put on it, Elizabeth has clearly explained her experience and understanding from that time in her life, and to ignore that is a huge insult to her.

Why is it you're like the third person to bring this up and my answer is the same: nobody is ignoring what she said. If you read http://www.yourhoust...c6161e3a2a.html in Tacenda's #41 post you'll get the distinct impression that it was the threat of death and physical harm which kept Smart in captivity. She did escape though by manipulating her captor.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Darren10

[why me]

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/...p-piece-of-gum/

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.”

What Elizabeth Smart said has very little to do with the church. But it has much to do with what she was taught sex should be. But how one interprets that in their daily life is up to that person. There is nothing in how she was raised to give her the understanding that if she were raped she would be dirty or unclean. Many women feel dirty and unclean after being raped. But what Elizabeth said had very little to do with the teachings of the lds church.

[Bikeemikey]

She talks about the "chewed gum" analogy and its effect on her thought process, and includes:

That sounds like her thoughts during captivity, not as a result of hearing something after she was rescued.

I've also seen the "chewed gum" teaching attributed to her middle school teacher, and she was in middle school at the time of her abduction; I don't know if she returned to that school after her rescue.

She does also talk about knowing that her parents would always love her, and she was determined to be reunited with them.

http://www.foxbaltimore.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/elizabeth-smart-speaks-at-johns-hopkins-human-trafficking-forum-486.shtml?wap=0#.UZFBzGS9Kc1

This is the video that I saw linked to earlier in the thread. Starting at 9:00 is when she talks about the content being discussed here. At 10:00 mins is the statement about the chewing gum analogy.

To me it seems very clear that she is saying she hears the analogy in school and had the response that she was the piece of gum because of what happens to her during her captivity. It certainly could be the case that she heard the analogy before being taken though.

Let me know what you think once you see the video.

[wenglund]

Headline: Young teen cuts off his own limbs after reading the book, "The Giving Tree." Author and teachers faulted for the dismemberment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[T-Shirt]

I haven't read the whole thread, but if it hasn't been pointed out, the following is, and has always been, the position of the Church regarding the victims of abuse:

Victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent. If you have been a victim of abuse, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Talk to your parents or another trusted adult, and seek your bishop’s counsel immediately. They can support you spiritually and assist you in getting the protection and help you need. The process of healing may take time. Trust in the Savior. He will heal you and give you peace.

This is in the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet and is, or at least, should be, taught regularly to the youth.

[Darren10]

In my opinion, the problem with the chewed gum analogy in general is that is has no element of the atonement in it.

Precisely!!!

The rest of your post is excellent as well.

[Darren10]

Headline: Young teen cuts off his own limbs after reading the book, "The Giving Tree." Author and teachers faulted for the dismemberment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If the young teen was an Ent, this could be serious.

[wenglund]

If the young teen was an Ent, this could be serious.

The young teen can't be an Ent, because he would probably still be deliberating in council, since such things taaaaaakkkkkkkke tiiiiiiiimmmmmme.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Duncan]

I haven't read the whole thread, but if it hasn't been pointed out, the following is, and has always been, the position of the Church regarding the victims of abuse:

This is in the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet and is, or at least, should be, taught regularly to the youth.

even people who have pre-marital relations if they repent can be forgiven and be new again

[Bikeemikey]

even people who have pre-marital relations if they repent can be forgiven and be new again

That's true but culturally it appears we need to make sure they feel bad about themselves for a reasonable period of time.

[Calm]

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.

MIsrepresenting what someone says, substituting one's own point for theirs is a good thing in your view than if the goal is worthy?