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

[Senator]

No she didn't. She said:

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.

I will grant you that she did not explicitly say that. I will say however, that she did say it implicitly. It would seem strange to me that she would go to such lengths in describing her own feelings of shame, filthiness, and of little self worth only to express mere sympathy for those that would lose the desire to run because of these feelings; however meaning to say, but this wasn't the case for me. It seems far more probable that her ability to empathize with such individuals was due to the fact that she herself felt/thought the same way. Regardless, whether she attributed these feeling to her own not running, or not, she acknowledges the validity of such feelings in those that do. Either way, the message remains.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Senator

[Calm]

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.yourhoust...c6161e3a2a.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.

If you haven't listened to the video of her first presentation, you should. Perhaps you should again even if you already have now that you understand there was greater context involved than presented in either the Fox or Brooks' story.

[Mark Beesley]

Having watched Elizabeth Smart's presentation, and read Joanna Brooks blog, and then wading through the four pages of this thread, I have come to the following preliminary conclusions:

1. Reading comprehension is a lost art;

2. Personal bias clouds comprehension; and

3. Agenda driven posts obliterate comprehension.

Joanna Brooks' blog was not nearly so critical of the Church as it was of intransigent Mormons who resist official Church direction.

[cinepro]

http://www.foxbaltim...=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.

It is pretty clear (to me) that she is describing her thought process during her captivity, based on what she had learned at school before her kidnapping.

Besides, it would be a criminally ignorant and insensitive teacher who would say such things having a post-rescue Elizabeth Smart sitting in the class. And I also suspect she had very, very intense spiritual and psychological counseling upon her return, to the point that she would be able to recognize the fallacy of such analogies (as she is able to explain now).

[wenglund]

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

Somebody evidently doesn't understand the difference between behaviors and the people, themselves. With this kind of inane "thinking," it is little wonder that a relatively benign analogy is so profoundly misunderstood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Having watched Elizabeth Smart's presentation, and read Joanna Brooks blog, and then wading through the four pages of this thread, I have come to the following preliminary conclusions:

1. Reading comprehension is a lost art;

2. Personal bias clouds comprehension; and

3. Agenda driven posts obliterate comprehension.

Joanna Brooks' blog was not nearly so critical of the Church as it was of intransigent Mormons who resist official Church direction.

I appreciate you sharing with us your agenda-driven view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

I appreciate you sharing with us your agenda-driven view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you stalking me? Should I be worried?

[Mike Reed]

An almost prophetic quote:

“A change in attitude... is needed…. I am not suggesting that huge amounts of church time and effort be spent on this issue. Rather, it seems possible that just a few well-placed words of advice in lesson manuals and at leadership training meetings could make all the difference. For example, one common teaching method used in Young Women programs and firesides throughout the U.S. (but probably not with official sanction, I hasten to add) is what I call the ‘Half-Eaten Doughnut Method.’ Here, young women are presented with both a fresh doughnut and a half-eaten doughnut (or alternatively a piece of chewed-up gum) then asked to choose which they would rather eat. The half-eaten doughnut is likened to a girl who is sexually experienced, while the untouched doughnut represents a virgin. The message is that young men only want to marry virgins. Ignored here is the fact that sexually abused girls who are subjected to this analogy will view themselves as a less desirable 'doughnut' even though they were not responsible for their sexual experience. The damage to self-esteem could be considerable. A young victim may perceive that a once-damaged ‘doughnut’ can never be made whole again; she may then abandon all efforts to avoid premarital sex in the suture, eventually alienating herself from the church, the very institution which should be the most helpful in assisting her recovery from abusive experiences. If the church leaders allow the ‘Half-Eaten Doughnut Method’ to continue in YW programs, they at least need to emphasize that the analogy does not apply to victims of sexual abuse.”

Dynette Ivie Reynolds, "Youth, Sex, and Coercion: The Neglect of Sexual Abuse Factors in LDS Data and Policy on Premarital Sex," Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought (1992), 100-101.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Mike Reed

[cinepro]

Somebody evidently doesn't understand the difference between behaviors and the people, themselves. With this kind of inane "thinking," it is little wonder that a relatively benign analogy is so profoundly misunderstood.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just so I'm clear, you disagree with Elizabeth Smart and would classify the "chewing gum" analogy as "relatively benign"?

[Darren10]

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-

Heh!!!

[Darren10]

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

Doesn't God as well? I've no inherent problem teaching guilt. In fact it helps one to repent. What I do not like is judgementalism (if you call it that). It is wrong to teach guilt without repentence and a hope in Christ.

[Darren10]

Having watched Elizabeth Smart's presentation, and read Joanna Brooks blog, and then wading through the four pages of this thread, I have come to the following preliminary conclusions:

1. Reading comprehension is a lost art;

2. Personal bias clouds comprehension; and

3. Agenda driven posts obliterate comprehension.

Joanna Brooks' blog was not nearly so critical of the Church as it was of intransigent Mormons who resist official Church direction.

Yet Joana Brooks very much *did* connect the traditional Mormon teaching of chastity and the official LDS church teaching of it. and her main point was that said teachings lead Elizabeth Smart to remain captive to a sexual predator for longer than was needed. Joanna Brooks has the reading comprehension problem (which, by the way, would include yourself, no?), not those criticizing her here.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

An almost prophetic quote:

“A change in attitude... is needed…. I am not suggesting that huge amounts of church time and effort be spent on this issue. Rather, it seems possible that just a few well-placed words of advice in lesson manuals and at leadership training meetings could make all the difference. For example, one common teaching method used in Young Women programs and firesides throughout the U.S. (but probably not with official sanction, I hasten to add) is what I call the ‘Half-Eaten Doughnut Method.’ Here, young women are presented with both a fresh doughnut and a half-eaten doughnut (or alternatively a piece of chewed-up gum) then asked to choose which they would rather eat. The half-eaten doughnut is likened to a girl who is sexually experienced, while the untouched doughnut represents a virgin. The message is that young men only want to marry virgins. Ignored here is the fact that sexually abused girls who are subjected to this analogy will view themselves as a less desirable 'doughnut' even though they were not responsible for their sexual experience. The damage to self-esteem could be considerable. A young victim may perceive that a once-damaged ‘doughnut’ can never be made whole again; she may then abandon all efforts to avoid premarital sex in the suture, eventually alienating herself from the church, the very institution which should be the most helpful in assisting her recovery from abusive experiences. If the church leaders allow the ‘Half-Eaten Doughnut Method’ to continue in YW programs, they at least need to emphasize that the analogy does not apply to victims of sexual abuse.”

Dynette Ivie Reynolds, "Youth, Sex, and Coercion: The Neglect of Sexual Abuse Factors in LDS Data and Policy on Premarital Sex," Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought (1992), 100-101.

Do the firesides condemned by Dialogue include reprentence and hope in Christ or just the analogy of a half-eaten doughunt? as a non betting man 9it's against my religion) I'd bet on trhe former and not the latter. And how were those words somewhat prophetic if they do not apply to Elizabeth Smart's remaining captive?

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Mike Reed]

Do the firesides condemned by Dialogue include reprentence and hope in Christ or just the analogy of a half-eaten doughunt? as a non betting man 9it's against my religion) I'd bet on trhe former and not the latter. And how were those words somewhat prophetic if they do not apply to Elizabeth Smart's remaining captive?

You are more than welcome to read the issue yourself. And next time... please write more coherently. Of course the quote I gave made no prediction about remaining captive, silly. Nobody said otherwise. The quote spoke in regards to abused being harmed by the analogy. And in that regard, I think it was accurate. Comprende?

Ps. Stop defending Mormonism. You are a horrible apologist. You are making us look bad.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

Doesn't God as well [make sure they feel bad about themselves for a reasonable period of time]? I've no inherent problem teaching guilt.

I bet if the person has truly repented and had no intention of repeating the behaviour and follows through on that intent that God would be perfectly fine if the individual experienced no negative feelings about the behaviour beyond "this is something I should not and will not do".

I would state it that God will promote shame or guilt for as long as it takes for true repentance to settle in, after that it seems to me he has little use for it.

[Bikeemikey]

Doesn't God as well? I've no inherent problem teaching guilt. In fact it helps one to repent. What I do not like is judgementalism (if you call it that). It is wrong to teach guilt without repentence and a hope in Christ.

Guilt is the result of sin... The idea of teaching guilt is like teaching sin.

When someone stubs their toe we don't tell them to focus on the pain.

I disagree with the entire concept of teaching guilt... Though i think you were likely expressing the idea of teaching about guilt... Which I am fine with if coupled with the atonement as you suggested.

When someone commits sin you shouldn't tell them to focus on the guilt.

[Bikeemikey]

It is pretty clear (to me) that she is describing her thought process during her captivity, based on what she had learned at school before her kidnapping.

Besides, it would be a criminally ignorant and insensitive teacher who would say such things having a post-rescue Elizabeth Smart sitting in the class. And I also suspect she had very, very intense spiritual and psychological counseling upon her return, to the point that she would be able to recognize the fallacy of such analogies (as she is able to explain now).

Interesting that we get such different conclusions - your second paragraph was the very reason that I thought Elizabeth Smart was so avid about people not using that sort of analogy.

If you ever sec additional sources on the timing of the analogy she shared let me know.

I'm going to settle on ambiguous for now.

[Senator]

In my mind the only possible useful employment of the licked cupcake, chewed gum object lessons is in the practical demonstration of the very real risk, inherent with promiscuity, of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Senator

[Darren10]

Of course the quote I gave made no prediction about remaining captive, silly. Nobody said otherwise.

Which is why I'm still scratching my head as to how your citation was prophetic in any way? Prophetic to what? This thread is about (a much needed) criticism of Joanna Brooks and linking Elizabeth's unessesary long duration in sexual captivity to LDS official teachings of chastity and how that has filtered into Mormon cultural teachings. As pointed out, neither of which have any basis.

The quote spoke in regards to abused being harmed by the analogy. And in that regard, I think it was accurate. Comprende?

Si, yo lo comprendo, ingrato amigo / hermano mío. But since it isn’t applicable to Elizabeth smart while this thread is, how is it prophetic? Saying that said teachings is going to hurt someone is one thing, and, yes, it can hurt, but who’s been hurt by it? I mean names. Who, *exactly*, has been hurt by the ‘chewed gum’ analogy.

I hope this post meets your high standards of coherency. My grammar sucks and I’ve come to grips with that figuring that it’ll improve over time the more I write and/or speak.

Ps. Stop defending Mormonism. You are a horrible apologist. You are making us look bad.

Sir, if you were the last Mormon on the planet I would rush to volunteer to stop defending it.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I bet if the person has truly repented and had no intention of repeating the behaviour and follows through on that intent that God would be perfectly fine if the individual experienced no negative feelings about the behaviour beyond "this is something I should not and will not do".

I would state it that God will promote shame or guilt for as long as it takes for true repentance to settle in, after that it seems to me he has little use for it.

I pretty much agree with you. But guilt and repentence do go hand in hand. I guess I do oppose forced gulit upon others. "You sinned that much therefore you must feel this much guilt" would fall in line with judgementalism as I previously said.

[Darren10]

I disagree with the entire concept of teaching guilt... Though i think you were likely expressing the idea of teaching about guilt... Which I am fine with if coupled with the atonement as you suggested.

I agree to a point. My concern with this is that we've become a guilt-free society and it's damning.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Bikeemikey]

I agree to a point. My concern with this is that we've become a guilt-free society and it's damning.

I can share some concern with you there.

[USU78]

I will grant you that she did not explicitly say that. I will say however, that she did say it implicitly. It would seem strange to me that she would go to such lengths in describing her own feelings of shame, filthiness, and of little self worth only to express mere sympathy for those that would lose the desire to run because of these feelings; however meaning to say, but this wasn't the case for me. It seems far more probable that her ability to empathize with such individuals was due to the fact that she herself felt/thought the same way. Regardless, whether she attributed these feeling to her own not running, or not, she acknowledges the validity of such feelings in those that do. Either way, the message remains.

Arguing from silence?

She didn't say what I wanted her to say, but since she said something at least in the same area code as what I wanted her to say, I'll take the position she said what she didn't say?

[Senator]

Arguing from silence?

She didn't say what I wanted her to say, but since she said something at least in the same area code as what I wanted her to say, I'll take the position she said what she didn't say?

Do you agree with my statement?: "whether she attributed these feeling to her own not running, or not, she acknowledges the validity of such feelings in those that do." If you do, does it really matter whether or not she explicitly attributes such feelings to her own experience?

[USU78]

Do you agree with my statement?: "whether she attributed these feeling to her own not running, or not, she acknowledges the validity of such feelings in those that do." If you do, does it really matter whether or not she explicitly attributes such feelings to her own experience?

In the context of this thread? Absolutely YES!!!!!

Acknowledging the feelings of self-loathing and disgust resulting from impositions upon the innocent by violent cowards is an apple.

Her staying attributable to any appreciable degree to those feelings, where those feelings are engendered or worsened because of Mormon Doctrine and/or Policy is an orange.