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

[Tacenda]

Senator, I agree, why do some here space out on her words, do they think she's not aware of what or who she's talking about? She said these things to promote change in order to stop what happened to her from happening to others. Can't they accept and respect her words, not Joanna's but hers? It's like they are afraid to acknowledge it and afraid it is placing blame on the church, I don't think anyone wants that, atleast I don't.

[Bikeemikey]

Senator, I agree, why do some here space out on her words, do they think she's not aware of what or who she's talking about? She said these things to promote change in order to stop what happened to her from happening to others. Can't they accept and respect her words, not Joanna's but hers? It's like they are afraid to acknowledge it and afraid it is placing blame on the church, I don't think anyone wants that, atleast I don't.

As much as I like Joanna Brooks writing I cant help but think that if she had not made such a hash job of her first article on the subject people's responses may have been a little different.

[Senator]

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.

Well, ok, I feel that you have, in part, given answer to a question I did not ask. So I'll try to rephrase my question in relation to my position. It is my position that Elizabeth did indeed espouse the argument that certain societal (church or otherwise) notions of sexuality, and particularly the manner in which they were presented, were not very well crafted with the victims of sexual assault in mind, and indeed can (and did in her case) contribute to victims formulating a false interpretation of the event; interpretations which can then lead to the deflation of his or her (not necessarily Elizabeth's) motivation to flee.(If you feel Elizabeth did not make this argument then that would explain our disagreement!) My question was narrowly addressing the latter portion of this position; that it matters not whether Elizabeth claims this position was the case in her story, but that she validates it nonetheless. I hope that clarifies.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Senator

[Senator]

As much as I like Joanna Brooks writing I cant help but think that if she had not made such a hash job of her first article on the subject people's responses may have been a little different.

You may be right. There was a point to be made, but it was made with unnecessary collateral damage.

[Darren10]

Senator, I agree, why do some here space out on her words, do they think she's not aware of what or who she's talking about? She said these things to promote change in order to stop what happened to her from happening to others. Can't they accept and respect her words, not Joanna's but hers? It's like they are afraid to acknowledge it and afraid it is placing blame on the church, I don't think anyone wants that, atleast I don't.

Elizabeth Smart did not blame the Church, Joanna Brooks did. Who is criticizing Smart?

[Darren10]

Tacenda;

OK, I think I understand your post now and who you're referring to. I'm a bit slow sometimes.

[USU78]

Well, ok, I feel that you have, in part, given answer to a question I did not ask. So I'll try to rephrase my question in relation to my position. It is my position that Elizabeth did indeed espouse the argument that certain societal (church or otherwise) notions of sexuality, and particularly the manner in which they were presented, were not very well crafted with the victims of sexual assault in mind, and indeed can (and did in her case) contribute to victims formulating a false interpretation of the event; interpretations which can then lead to the deflation of his or her (not necessarily Elizabeth's) motivation to flee.(If you feel Elizabeth did not make this argument then that would explain our disagreement!) My question was narrowly addressing the latter portion of this position; that it matters not whether Elizabeth claims this position was the case in her story, but that she validates it nonetheless. I hope that clarifies.

I'm trying to make clear to you that there are bad guys out there who pounce upon every opportunity, however presented, in order to give the Church a black eye. The kneejerk pounce upon Soeur Smart's words at the White Slavery conference is an example of this kneejerk phenomenon. We in the Church should not get sidetracked by the details of the pounce, some of which will be based upon something resembling facts. The use of those details to try to deliver haymakers should overwhelm all other considerations. Block the d@mn punches. Don't give aid and comfort to an enemy, because enemy she surely is.

Now, with this in mind . . .

There is every reason in the world to encourage employment of procreative powers only within certain ritualized bounds. Strategies for enforcement of those bounds are a good thing. Kids do best when given clear and unambiguous limits. We as grownups can appreciate nuances better than they can, as we've already internalized those bounds.

Example: We have limited bandwidth in our home, and both my wife and I operate our businesses out of our home. We have 2 teenagers who suck up bandwidth like Wurlitzers. So . . . what is easier for them to comply with? Don't get on the internet between the hours of 10:00 and 4:00 during weekdays? or Don't do anything other than emails, homework, facebook and twitter during the hours of 10:00 and 4:00 during weekdays, avoiding all high-bandwidth-sucking online games and videos?

YES: the latter is actually more "freedom-ensuring," but far more invasive, because it takes a whole lot more policing to keep having to look at screens and hidden pages.

YES: the former is more limiting, but it's easier to negotiate bright lines than fuzzy ones . . . and takes a whole lot less intrusive intervention.

Edited May 14, 2013 by USU78

[Maestrophil]

Precisely!!!

The rest of your post is excellent as well.

Thanks! :-)

[Senator]

I'm trying to make clear to you that there are bad guys out there who pounce upon every opportunity, however presented, in order to give the Church a black eye. The kneejerk pounce upon Soeur Smart's words at the White Slavery conference is an example of this kneejerk phenomenon. We in the Church should not get sidetracked by the details of the pounce, some of which will be based upon something resembling facts. The use of those details to try to deliver haymakers should overwhelm all other considerations. Block the d@mn punches. Don't give aid and comfort to an enemy, because enemy she surely is.

Now, with this in mind . . .

There is every reason in the world to encourage employment of procreative powers only within certain ritualized bounds. Strategies for enforcement of those bounds are a good thing. Kids do best when given clear and unambiguous limits. We as grownups can appreciate nuances better than they can, as we've already internalized those bounds.

Example: We have limited bandwidth in our home, and both my wife and I operate our businesses out of our home. We have 2 teenagers who suck up bandwidth like Wurlitzers. So . . . what is easier for them to comply with? Don't get on the internet between the hours of 10:00 and 4:00 during weekdays? or Don't do anything other than emails, homework, facebook and twitter during the hours of 10:00 and 4:00 during weekdays, avoiding all high-bandwidth-sucking online games and videos?

YES: the latter is actually more "freedom-ensuring," but far more invasive, because it takes a whole lot more policing to keep having to look at screens and hidden pages.

YES: the former is more limiting, but it's easier to negotiate bright lines than fuzzy ones . . . and takes a whole lot less intrusive intervention.

Wow! You just shifted the tracks and headed down a rail..........to somewhere..........I honestly don't have a clue were you are wont to take this, or that I'm even interested in pursuing it with you. I'll just say that it is very apparent that you and I are very different as to our approach and perspective to things. So, with that I'll bid you adieu.

[wenglund]

Are you stalking me? Should I be worried?

What you should do is take your paranoia meds?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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

I haven't personally delved into what Elizabeth Smart has said, so I can't say for sure. However, I do believe the "chewing gum" analogy is "relatively benign." To me, if people have read way more into the analogy than what was simply and helpfully intended, then the problem isn't with the analogy.

As intimated before, if a man reads Mt. 5:30 in a highly literal way, and literally cuts of his hands after sexually transgressing, the problem isn't with Mt 5:30, but with the person chopping off their hands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

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.

Ultimately, what difference does it make whether she heard the analogy before or after her abduction (or never heard it at all)?

The point is she didn't run, she did feel "worthless" because of the sexual assault, and the analogy is false and damaging (and, to the degree that it is related to the gospel, it is false doctrine).

Based on the search results I'm seeing, it looks like people have really latched onto Elizabeth's comments as being an example of why teaching "abstinence" is a bad idea, which I imagine is the opposite of what she intended (and I suspect we'll get clarification on this).

I did come across this other quote, which presents additional light on what Elizabeth went through that first morning, and where she drew her strength from:

"I'll never forget the morning I was kidnapped and taken up into the mountains...I was brought into a tent, and the man followed me inside, and zipped up the tent. I was crying....I screamed out...." The man said he would kill her if she screamed again. She did not scream again. "I knew I wasn't ready to die yet...." Describing what he did and her feelings, she wondered if her parents would want her back.

"I was a 14 year old girl...I didn't watch the news much, but while I was on the floor of the tent I thought of those stories, saying that 'they found her body' and thought, they are the lucky ones, because they don't have to feel like their souls have been crushed...I fell asleep to those thoughts. I was chained up...I felt like my life wasn't worth living anymore. I was sentenced to a life less than an animal....I was a junior high school student about to graduate. I thought about how much I had changed in a day, I thought of family, my mom in particular...I didn't want to forget my mom's voice...."

Smart smiled as she remembered her disgruntlement upon hearing her mother's voice as a child telling her to go practice (harp), and do the dishes. Sometimes her mother gave her a choice - do the dishes or go practice, but her mother also said, "'once you're done with the dishes, you'll still have to practice.'" Of particular irritation to Smart was the sound of her mother singing at the top of her voice, "Oh What A Beautiful Morning!" to wake up her and her siblings at 6:30 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. each morning to get ready for school.

But as Smart lay on the floor of the tent, raped and alone, she thought of her mother, and said, at that time, "I would have given anything to hear her at that moment...."

Her mother also always told her that 'nobody's opinions mattered except for God's and mine.' Her mother always told her that 'He loves you and will never turn [His] back on you', and 'I will always love you, you will always be my daughter.'"

"Those words stayed with me and I decided I would survive, no matter what. I knew one day I would walk home....That decision was a big turning point for me. The things I was forced to do, no one could make me do now...."

http://janineslittlehollywood.blogspot.com/2013/01/hidden-in-plain-sight-elizabeth-smart.html

I wonder if those who are using Elizabeth as an example of how bad "abstinence-only sex education" can be will also be using her as an example of how extremely important it can be for a child to grow up with a loving mom and dad and a firm belief in God?

[cinepro]

I haven't personally delved into what Elizabeth Smart has said, so I can't say for sure. However, I do believe the "chewing gum" analogy is "relatively benign." To me, if people have read way more into the analogy than what was simply and helpfully intended, then the problem isn't with the analogy.

As intimated before, if a man reads Mt. 5:30 in a highly literal way, and literally cuts of his hands after sexually transgressing, the problem isn't with Mt 5:30, but with the person chopping off their hands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The problem isn't with a too-literal interpretation of the analogy. No one (including Elizabeth Smart) worries about literally turning into a chewed piece of gum or a half-eaten donut after having pre-marital sex. She didn't say "and now I was worried that my body would slowly turn into a masticated combination of gum base, softeners and flavorings."

The problem is with the actual intended meaning of the analogy. The better one understands the intended meaning, the more disturbing (and offensive) it is.

Edited May 14, 2013 by cinepro

[Darren10]

I'm trying to make clear to you that there are bad guys out there who pounce upon every opportunity, however presented, in order to give the Church a black eye. The kneejerk pounce upon Soeur Smart's words at the White Slavery conference is an example of this kneejerk phenomenon. We in the Church should not get sidetracked by the details of the pounce, some of which will be based upon something resembling facts. The use of those details to try to deliver haymakers should overwhelm all other considerations. Block the d@mn punches. Don't give aid and comfort to an enemy, because enemy she surely is.

Whoohoo, MMA Mormon Apologetic style.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Mike Reed]

Whoohoo, MMA Mormon Apologetic style.

Feather weight.

[Bikeemikey]

Ultimately, what difference does it make whether she heard the analogy before or after her abduction (or never heard it at all)?

The point is she didn't run, she did feel "worthless" because of the sexual assault, and the analogy is false and damaging (and, to the degree that it is related to the gospel, it is false doctrine).

Based on the search results I'm seeing, it looks like people have really latched onto Elizabeth's comments as being an example of why teaching "abstinence" is a bad idea, which I imagine is the opposite of what she intended (and I suspect we'll get clarification on this).

I did come across this other quote, which presents additional light on what Elizabeth went through that first morning, and where she drew her strength from:

I wonder if those who are using Elizabeth as an example of how bad "abstinence-only sex education" can be will also be using her as an example of how extremely important it can be for a child to grow up with a loving mom and dad and a firm belief in God?

I fully agree... I dont think it really matters at all. I think it would just provide a little extra-example just how bad some of the research was pre-publication of a few of the articles discussing her comments.

Really liked you last line.

[USU78]

Whoohoo, MMA Mormon Apologetic style.

So . . . you up for being on my Corner Crew? I need a new eye guy.

[Darren10]

Cinepro #112;

The point is she didn't run, she did feel "worthless" because of the sexual assault, and the analogy is false and damaging (and, to the degree that it is related to the gospel, it is false doctrine).

Hold yer' horses there Cinepro. She did not run die to fear of physical harm being inflicted upon her if she were to run and get caught. She was ready to run and sought to run; just did not find thew opportunity to do so. And since when is the 'chewed gum' analogy "false doctrine". It's perfectly compatible to LDS doctrine regarding one's virtue and self worth as determined by one's choices but in and of itself is incomplete. However, combined with the Atonement, the analogy flows harmoniously to one's soul.

[Darren10]

Feather weight.

You can take your sorry self and leave this thread for all I care.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

So . . . you up for being on my Corner Crew? I need a new eye guy.

Only if I can serve you water between rounds.

[cinepro]

Cinepro #112;

Hold yer' horses there Cinepro. She did not run die to fear of physical harm being inflicted upon her if she were to run and get caught. She was ready to run and sought to run; just did not find thew opportunity to do so. And since when is the 'chewed gum' analogy "false doctrine". It's perfectly compatible to LDS doctrine regarding one's virtue and self worth as determined by one's choices but in and of itself is incomplete. However, combined with the Atonement, the analogy flows harmoniously to one's soul.

No, the analogy is "false" (and "false doctrine") because the entire point of "chewed gum" is that it isn't useful, and it can't be restored to a pure form again. It's forever changed. And it's totally worthless; no one has ever done anything with chewed gum other than throw it out.

The only analogy that works is one that introduces a change that can (obviously) be reversed and restored to its original state.

Edited May 14, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

She was ready to run and sought to run; just did not find thew opportunity to do so.

IIRC, she did try a few time and failed and was punished for doing so and at least once when the opportunity was realistic (because the police were there) she did not feel it was appropriate to speak up for herself but wondered why the police didn't realize what he was saying was a lie (and the police walked away, I think he told them she was her daughter).

[Mike Reed]

You can take your sorry self and leave this thread for all I care.

Woah there, cowboy! Of course I can. But do you have control of that? Edited May 14, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

The only analogy that works is one that introduces a change that can (obviously) be reversed and restored to its original state.

I agree. While one can point to the chewed gum and say "imagine if there was something that could restore it to its original state, wouldn't that be great"....this assumes that many would feel just fine about eating it, but according to contamination studies that I just read recently so hopefully can find it if someone asks (someone might have linked to it already, I can't remember which conversation I had that brought this up), when a cockroach is placed into juice, no one will want to drink the juice even after it's been purified. So one may say it's as if it had never been chewed, but because 1) they don't see the change itself and 2) even though intellectually they might 'think' the gum was just as good restored as new, gut reaction to contamination 'says' otherwise, the analogy isn't that great.

There are cold packs that can be used up by 'cracking' them (thus causing the reaction that renders them quite cold) which of course lose their ability to be cold after that use, but then restored to their 'brand new' state by adding heat, they again can be used as cold packs. Something along those lines would be a better analogy if one is going to use a visual aid. If one is just going to use a verbal one, then I would choose another where in the real world adding an outside agent or force to the object causes it to revert back to its original state so that they get not only the analogy of being used up, but also the analogy of being restored to a pristine state.

Edited May 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

No, the analogy is "false" (and "false doctrine") because the entire point of "chewed gum" is that it isn't useful, and it can't be restored to a pure form again. It's forever changed. And it's totally worthless; no one has ever done anything with chewed gum other than throw it out.

The only analogy that works is one that introduces a change that can (obviously) be reversed and restored to its original state.

The chewing gum analogy *on it's own* does not restore the gum to its original form. Likewise, none of us will be restored to our original pure form without the Atonement. So, as i said, *when including the Atonement*, the chewing gum analogy fits in fine with LDS doctrine.