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

[Darren10]

Woah there, cowboy! Of course I can. But do you have control of that?

My thread, sir.

[Darren10]

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).

The police scenario seems to be based on assumptions made on Smart's part. I've been guilty of that as well.

'Why can't you see through this lie. It's obviously not true..."

[Calm]

The police scenario seems to be based on assumptions made on Smart's part. I've been guilty of that as well.

I didn't get the impression she was wondering why when she was an adult, but rather she was relaying thoughts that were going through her head at the time.

I think it demonstrates how passive abused victims get in order to survive. If she had managed to speak up at the time, then doubt would have been likely created in the cops and they would have questioned the lies, but she was unable to...she had gone into the mode of being reactive, not proactive, because that was what she needed to survive.

I got the impression she believed we need to teach our children when to be passive/reactive and when to be assertive/proactive in such situations so unlike her who was not prepared but did the best she could, others would be prepared and thus their 'best' would be better than hers.

And if I am right in my interpretation, I would agree with her.

Edited May 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mike Reed]

My thread, sir.

Oh yeah? The rules of the forum say that the opening poster gets to decide who participates? News to me. I am afraid that you've confused the function of the "focus forum" with this one.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[crixus]

Could someone please explain to me how Brooks has "misguided" everyone about what Elizabeth Smart said?

Someone references Dan Peterson, who for some reason decided not to read the actual talk before passing judgment. His blog piece is full of speculation about what critics have said, as well as what Elizabeth Smart "allegedly" says.

Why are Mormons unwilling to cite her word for word, and then let the public make their own judgment about whether or not she was misrepresented? I just don't understand these blog posts and forum threads that talk about something that was said, without actually quoting what was said. It's like you want everyone to accept what you would have preferred she say, as well as your blanket condemnation of those who quoted Smart's own words.

If you think she was taken out of context, then show the context.

Elizabeth Smart is a courageous young lady who has suffered more than anyone should have to. It took a lot of courage to speak publicly on this subject, even though it was a relatively brief talk of roughly twelve minutes. I was surprised she decided to address the question so many people had asked themselves: why didn't she try to get away?

She makes it clear from the beginning that the number one reason why she didn't try to get away was fear for her life and the lives of her family members. However, eight minutes and fifteen seconds into her talk she revisits the question, "Why didn't you run?" and she dedicates the next three minutes elaborating further in her answer:

I think it goes even beyond fear. For so many children, especially in sex trafficking, it is feelings of self worth. It is feelings of 'who would want me now? I'm worthless. That is what it was for me from the first time I was raped 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 what I've been raised, that's what I'd always been determined to follow. When I got married, then and only then would I engage in sex. And so, for that first rape, I felt crushed. Who could want me now? I felt so dirty and so filthy. I understand so easily, all too well, why someone wouldn't run. Because of that alone. I mean if you could imagine the most special thing being taken away from you and feeling like that, not that that was your only value in life, but something that devalued you, could you imagine turning around and going back into society where you're no longer of value, where you're no longer as good as everybody else?

Some sensitive LDS have tried to attribute the above remarks to her teaching at "school," which may explain why they aren't bothering to cite her at all. But the context clearly points to her "religious" upbringing. Because of that religious upbringing she learned that to have sex before marriage meant to be "no longer of value." (Sorry Mormons, but that's what she said). She then goes on to describe what she was taught in school in Utah, which most of us know is just a byproduct of Mormon teaching:

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 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, but nobody should ever say that. But for me I thought, oh my gosh I'm that chewed up piece of gum. Nobody rechews a piece of gum. You throw it away. And that's how easily it is to feel 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.

So I think that, first of all probably not asking, why didn't you run? I think that's a good place to start, we were not in that situation, we don't know the circumstances, and we're all so different, we really don't have a right to ask that question. In my opinion. But I think also the best thing we can do is educate young people.

Now can someone please explain to me how Brooks has misrepresented this young lady?

These analogies are prevalent in LDS teaching, especially for the youth. If you don't believe me, then check this out, provided by Mike Reed elsewhere:

“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.

Mormons were writing about this cultural phenomenon more than two decades ago.

And I remember on my mission back in the early 90's we watched this Michael McClain video all the time. He is the guy who did the music for most of the Church's missionary films. Anyway, he would reminisce about how his Sunday school teacher would hammer nails into a board during a lesson on repentance. The board represented our souls, the nails represented sin and the claw on the hammer represented repentance. After pulling the nails out she would say something like, thanks to the love and atonement of the savior, our sins can be forgiven. But then, according to this famous Mormon musician, she would hold up the board and say with a terrifying voice, "but the scars are still there!!!!!" I don't think the Church fully appreciates how these teachings impact younger minds. This man who was well into his forties, and remembered this teaching like it was yesterday.

So can we attribute Smart's decision to remain obedient to her captors, to her religious upbringing? I think that only a fair reading of her own words supports that position in the sense that she felt there was really no point in trying. She made it very clear, and in fact spent several minutes on that point alone. Her sense of worthlessness, which came directly from her religious background. This doesn't mean the Church teaches rape victims to stay victims. It just means that, for little children, they only understand this in a very limited way, and it turned out to be counterproductive for Elizabeth. Because of her sense of worthlessness, which only came from her religious upbringing, she asked herself, "why bother trying to escape"? This is what I have read from media pieces, and in my opinion they are dead on accurate in their representation of Smart's talk.

Having said all that, I think it is best to teach children to remain abstinent during their early teens, but at the same time forgo all the scary rhetoric about how you become damaged goods in the process of losing your virginity. This idea that it is a gift like a precious piece of gold that can never be returned, is strictly a religious notion that has no business in the minds of little children.

Elizabeth Smart is living proof of this.

[Calm]

I think that only a fair reading of her own words supports that position in the sense that she felt there was really no point in trying.

But she stated she knew that her family would always want her back as well, in part due to her religious upbringing (whether referred to in the original talk or where she has been elsewhere cited where her mother says that God and her Mom would always want her).

So if it contributed it did only for a short time and she states it was her religious upbringing that gave her the strength to survive and want to come back...so to say it contributed to her not running while ignoring the rest is a disservice to what she actually stated, which is where Brooks went wrong, imo...not describing the whole context of Sister Smart's comments and instead narrowly focusing on one aspect in time.

Since the point of Sister Smart's talk was to promote teaching children ways to help them with running away from captors, from fighting back, it seems counterproductive to me to ignore what she presented as the biggest factor in her own ability to survive, which was the knowledge of the love of her family that was in part created by her religious upbringing.

"I felt my soul had been crushed," she said. "I felt like I wasn't even human anymore. How could anyone love me, or want me or care about me? I felt like life had no meaning to it. And that was only the beginning."

Smart went on to explain how soon after that first night she came to the realization that her parents would still love her despite all the horror she had experienced, and nothing would change their love for her.

"It was because of that realization that I was able to make the decision that no matter what I had to do, no matter how many personal goals or standards I had to break, I would do it, if it meant that I would survive," Smart said.

And it was Smart's decision that saw her through those nine months. As she described her rescue she detailed the moment her father came into the police station and Smart finally felt safe once again. She knew that no one would ever hurt her like that again and she knew that her parents did still love her.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765628943/Elizabeth-Smart-emphasizes-value-of-childrens-self-worth-at-human-trafficking-forum.html

Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

I didn't get the impression she was wondering why when she was an adult, but rather she was relaying thoughts that were going through her head at the time.

I think it demonstrates how passive abused victims get in order to survive. If she had managed to speak up at the time, then doubt would have been likely created in the cops and they would have questioned the lies, but she was unable to...she had gone into the mode of being reactive, not proactive, because that was what she needed to survive.

I got the impression she believed we need to teach our children when to be passive/reactive and when to be assertive/proactive in such situations so unlike her who was not prepared but did the best she could, others would be prepared and thus their 'best' would be better than hers.

And if I am right in my interpretation, I would agree with her.

I think you may be on to something.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

If you're referring to remorse of conscience, yes, that is an essential part of repentance.

[crixus]

But she stated she knew that her family would always want her back as well, in part due to her religious upbringing (whether referred to in the original talk or where she has been elsewhere cited where her mother says that God and her Mom would always want her).

This doesn't change the fact that Smart wasn't misrepresented by Brooks and company as Dan Peterson and others falsely suggest Smart made it perfectly clear that her religious upbringing caused her to respond to the raping in a way that probably wouldn't apply to a non-religious person. In Mormonism one's virginity is tied to purity and worth in both the eyes of God and society. Once that has been robbed, what's left for a child to feel except worthless? This is precisely what she said.

So if it contributed it did only for a short time and she states it was her religious upbringing that gave her the strength to survive and want to come back...

That's not what she said at all, and she never "came back." She walked around in public with them all the time with these two people. Even when the police questioned her she initially denied being who she is. If you want to say the memory of her parent's love is what prevented her from killing herself, well that may be true. But that's not what we're talking about. The will to stay alive and the desire to go back to your previous life are two different things, and she made it clear that the later was a hopeless endeavor since she no longer had worth in the religious sense.

so to say it contributed to her not running while ignoring the rest is a disservice to what she actually stated,

But that is precisely what smart said. I even provided emphasis to make the point even clearer. I know Mormons can be upset about this, but this is what she said nevertheless. This isn't an anti-Mormon conspiracy, as Peterson and others have tried to imply. No one asked Smart to give this speech the way she did. It clearly came from the heart. It was genuine. She spent a lot of time on this point. She said, and I quote: "I understand so easily, all too well, why someone wouldn't run. Because of that alone. I mean if you could imagine the most special thing being taken away from you and feeling like that, not that that was your only value in life, but something that devalued you, could you imagine turning around and going back into society where you're no longer of value, where you're no longer as good as everybody else?"

And your telling me these feelings, which clearly derive from religious teaching, had nothing to do with her reluctance to attempt escape? She says it had everything to do with it.

which is where Brooks went wrong, imo...not describing the whole context of Sister Smart's comments and instead narrowly focusing on one aspect in time.

[Daniel Peterson]

Could someone please explain to me how Brooks has "misguided" everyone about what Elizabeth Smart said?

Someone references Dan Peterson, who for some reason decided not to read the actual talk before passing judgment.

What "judgment" did I "pass"?

His blog piece is full of speculation about what critics have said, as well as what Elizabeth Smart "allegedly" says.

Where's all that "speculation"?

Here's my blog post:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/05/a-much-needed-correction-regarding-elizabeth-smart-and-church-teachings-regarding-chastity-abstinence-and-rape.html

It's only 431 words long, and most of it isn't even about "critics." Nor does it mention Joanna Brooks.

[crixus]

If you're referring to remorse of conscience, yes, that is an essential part of repentance.

Exactly, it is a religious view driven into a young child's mind. Does the Church go on to explain that if raped, their value diminishes? Well of course not, and I would hope that the Church teaching on this issue wouldn't go into every possible scenario involving a person's first sexual experience. But teachings for children in a religious context tend to focus on the negative consequences of sin as a way to scare them away from doing it in their early life.

These scary teachings have a profound impact on young minds, and in Elizabeth Smart's case, a very negative one.

[Scott Lloyd]

This doesn't change the fact that Smart wasn't misrepresented by Brooks and company as Dan Peterson and others falsely suggest Smart made it perfectly clear that her religious upbringing caused her to respond to the raping in a way that probably wouldn't apply to a non-religious person. In Mormonism one's virginity is tied to purity and worth in both the eyes of God and society.

That's a fatuous assertion. Mormonism doesn't equate virginity with purity.

In Mormon thought, one is not rendered impure just because she or he has been assaulted. And one who is true to the marital covenant is pure even though no longer a virgin.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel Peterson]

This doesn't change the fact that Smart wasn't misrepresented by Brooks and company as Dan Peterson and others falsely suggest

My blog post, which is publicly accessible, doesn't even mention Joanna Brooks:

http://www.patheos.c...e-and-rape.html

This isn't an anti-Mormon conspiracy, as Peterson and others have tried to imply.

I've neither implied nor tried to imply any such thing, and the thought has never so much as crossed my mind. My blog entry is easily accessible, and your claim is flatly false:

http://www.patheos.c...e-and-rape.html

Stop making things up and attributing them to me.

.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly, it is a religious view driven into a young child's mind. Does the Church go on to explain that if raped, their value diminishes? Well of course not, and I would hope that the Church teaching on this issue wouldn't go into every possible scenario involving a person's first sexual experience. But teachings for children in a religious context tend to focus on the negative consequences of sin as a way to scare them away from doing it in their early life.

These scary teachings have a profound impact on young minds, and in Elizabeth Smart's case, a very negative one.

It's not scary to teach that being sorry for wrongdoing is an essential part of repentance.

What is scary is the proliferation of the lie that one can obtain forgiveness having had no remorse of conscience.

[crixus]

D'an's blog entry is entitled a "much-needed correction" which strongly suggests someone somewhere is doing something that needs to be corrected. Though he clearly had not read Smart's comments, he decided to post some "corrections" concerning them, and he did so by insinuating over and over that what people say she says is not necessarily true. Well, that's a judgment.

He then goes on to reference, not Elizabeth, but instead some anonymous blogger who assures us that Elizabeth has been grossly misrepresented in the media.

So we have a blogger who hasn't read anything on this subject, giving a "much-needed correction," based on another anonymous blogger's instruction to "don't believe everything you hear."

[crixus]

That's a fatuous assertion. Mormonism doesn't equate virginity with purity.

To bad the analogies used by the Church fail to convey that message.

Besides, Church teachings suggest the opposite of what you just said: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/i-choose-to-be-pure?lang=eng

Or this one: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/10/truths-of-moral-purity?lang=eng

Or this: http://www.lds.org/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth-fulfilling-our-duty-to-god/sexual-purity?lang=eng

In any event, according to Elizabeth Smart and her Mormon teachings, it does correlates with "self-worth."

In Mormon thought, one is not rendered impure just because she or he has been assaulted.

​I doubt you'd find many teachings on the spiritual state of rape victims in the first place. But the general theme in Mormon teachings regarding virginity is that it does indeed determine one's level of purity. Elizabeth interpreted this as self-worth.

And one who is true to the marital covenant is pure even though no longer a virgin.

And you think this is something that the Church teaches to children? We're talking about how the church's teachings to children have attributed to Smart's dec

[crixus]

"A man or woman of marriageable age who has never had sexual intercourse. In the scriptures, a virgin may represent someone who is morally clean (Rev. 14:4)."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/virgin?lang=eng

Hard to imagine how some Mormon kids would get this idea that losing one's virginity means becoming unclean.

[rodheadlee]

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

Teaching by cruelty? You don't need any help making you look bad.

[Calm]

The will to stay alive and the desire to go back to your previous life are two different things, and she made it clear that the later was a hopeless endeavor since she no longer had worth in the religious sense.

Did you actually listen to her talk or just collected quotes from it.

If you listened, I would suggest you listen again about what she said about hope and what caused her to have it. She was not just living to survive, but living to return to her family whom she knew loved her.

[Daniel Peterson]

D'an's blog entry

Are you talking about me?

My name isn't D'an.

Though he clearly had not read Smart's comments . . . So we have a blogger who hasn't read anything on this subject

And you know this . . . how, exactly?

Incidentally, by the way, I've spoken with Elizabeth Smart and her family. And I've probably spent several hundred more hours in careful study of this case than you have.

insinuating over and over that what people say she says is not necessarily true.

How can I have done this "over and over" in a post that's only 431 words long, and most of which isn't about anybody else?

Well, that's a judgment.

If somebody says that "x isn't necessarily true" ("Jack isn't necessarily unhappy," "it may or may not be raining outside," "Jill isn't necessarily listening," "he may or may not be here tonight"), that's scarcely much of a "judgment."

Why in the world are you aiming this nonsense at me?

Incidentally, for anybody who may care to read what I actually wrote rather than what "crixus" is (rather weirdly) attributing to me -- how ironic that he's complaining about supposed misrepresentations! -- my blog post is available here:

http://www.patheos.c...e-and-rape.html

.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Calm]

In Mormonism one's virginity is tied to purity and worth in both the eyes of God and society. Once that has been robbed, what's left for a child to feel except worthless?

Virginity is not the same as chastity. There are some scriptures that might be misinterpreted that way if taken out of the greater context of LDS teachings, but it is false doctrine that chastity can be taken or "robbed", it can only be given away.

[crixus]

It is true Dan doesn't mention Brooks in his blog piece, but the author of this thread starts off praising Dan's blog entry and then immediately uses him to excoriate Brooks. Dan doesn't know exactly who he is correcting, apparently. He just heard rumors that the media is misrepresenting some "things" Elizabeth Smart had said, even if he doesn't know what those things actually are. The important thing is that we understand he is "correcting" those things, because whatever those things may be, we can be sure they are in error.

[crixus]

If Dan had read Smart's actual speech, he'd know what was actually said, and therefore have no need to reference the "alleged." He'd also know that the argument he constructed is made of straw.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is true Dan doesn't mention Brooks in his blog piece

True. And, given your gross mischaracterizations of my post, rather lethal to your complaint.

Dan doesn't know exactly who he is correcting, apparently. He just heard rumors that the media is misrepresenting some "things" Elizabeth Smart had said, even if he doesn't know what those things actually are. The important thing is that we understand he is "correcting" those things, because whatever those things may be, we can be sure they are in error.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Calm]

To bad the analogies used by the Church fail to convey that message.

If the analogies are used by the Church and not by just some church members, you should be able to find them in the Church teachings online. This is a CFR for this claim.