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

[Mike Reed]

Tone it down or you will be removed from the discussion.

tone down what exactly? Perhaps I have missed the problem, but I don't see any problematic tone in the post you are responding to. Is your prooblem that he/she is persuasive? or is there something actually against the rules in what he/she has done? Btw... I don't think Dan needs u to protect him. But if he does... Then maybe this means he should simply concede. Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Stargazer]

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.

I've been following this topic and I absolutely cannot get it, that YOU cannot get it. Joanna Brooks clearly put words into Elizabeth Smart's mouth, in that she said that Church teachings were a decisional factor in keeping Smart from attempting to escape -- but Smart said nothing of the kind. Smart was being restrained from escape by her captors, and had no opportunity to escape until she manipulated her captors to put themselves into a position where escape became possible. While she did bring up the chewed gum analogy, she did not even once suggest that that was what kept her from escaping. She didn't even say that she heard the analogy in a Church lesson, but heard it in a public school environment from a teacher. And it made her feel bad when she thought of it. But THAT was the extent of it! She did say that she felt dirty about the rape -- and who would not? -- but nothing about it, or the chewed gum, or anything other than opportunity and fear were to blame for her not escaping.

Brooks is a wolf in sheep's clothing. She is resorting to lies and misrepresentation in order to damage the Church, in this and in other issues she has brought up, and I have no respect whatsoever for her. She should do the honest thing and ask to have her name removed from the records, so that she can attack the Church without the thin veneer of respectability that her false allegiance via her membership record gives her.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is what I said, "In Mormonism one's virginity is tied to purity and worth in both the eyes of God and society." I never said the virginity and purity were "synonymous" as Scott keeps implying. I don't know why it is so hard to understand the difference between two things that are tied to one another, and are equal or synonymous.

Semantic quibbling. It's just as fatuous to say that in Mormonism "virginity is tied to purity and worth." If anything, that statement is even more absurd.

I was posting with an iPod Touch before so I could not provide the link I referred to from "For the Strength of Youth." Here it is now. And here is the relevant quote:

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.

You will notice it mirrors the the passage that calmoriah cited from "True to the Faith." It is even more pervasive than calmoriah said "True to the Faith" is. "For the Strength of Youth" is intended to be given to every Latter-day Saint youth, and each is expected to retain a copy and refer to it often. It is very frequently used in discourse and lessons directed to youth in the Church. It is something of a handbook for youth in the Church.

The fact that you seem oblivious to both "True to the Faith" and "For the Strength of Youth" indicates to me that you are not nearly as acquainted with LDS teaching as you let on.

But I think I understand Scott's desire to attribute to me something I never said. It serves to deflect from the fact that he refuses to let Elizabeth Smart speak for herself and continues to deny she said what she said.

Pure buncombe.

Calmoriah has demonstrated quite effectively here that you are the one who is misinterpreting Elizabeth Smart.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

tone down what exactly? Perhaps I have missed the problem, but I don't see any problematic tone in the post you are responding to. Is your prooblem that he/she is persuasive? or is there something actually against the rules in what he/she has done? Btw... I don't think Dan needs u to protect him. But if he does... Then maybe this means he should simply concede.

Mike Reed, are you this "crixus" poster? I mean, here you are responding to a Mod who asks CRIXUS to tone it down, and you are now asking what needs to be toned down?

Methinks that "crixus" is "Mike Reed"'s sock puppet.

[Scott Lloyd]

tone down what exactly? Perhaps I have missed the problem, but I don't see any problematic tone in the post you are responding to. Is your prooblem that he/she is persuasive? or is there something actually against the rules in what he/she has done? Btw... I don't think Dan needs u to protect him. But if he does... Then maybe this means he should simply concede.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the moderators need help from you in moderating either.

And your assertion that crixus is persuasive? Amazing.

[Storm Rider]

Brooks is not an impressive critic or individual. She is one of those pseudo intellectuals that parades about in elitist circles smirking about the foolish, the facile, the common from her lofty perspective at the bottom of a hole. She just happens to pick Mormonism as her jeu de choix. My problem with Smart's conversation is that it is limited and does not approach the full complexity of the situation. Then we get Ms. Brooks doing the pile on while creatively applying her own agenda. This is a yawner; someone slap the cat and let's move on.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Storm Rider

[Mike Reed]

I may be wrong, but I don't think the moderators need help from you in moderating either.

Of course they don't Lloyd. I'm really not surprised you'd say that. What was out of line in the post that the moderator responded to? Please fill me in... Inquiring minds want to know.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed, are you this "crixus" poster? I mean, here you are responding to a Mod who asks CRIXUS to tone it down, and you are now asking what needs to be toned down?

Methinks that "crixus" is "Mike Reed"'s sock puppet.

Absolutely. It's me. Never mind that I haven't had much time to post here at all, being so swamped with school. Never mind that I am more than happy to call you (and others) an idiot to your face, and need no avatar to hide behind. Yeah... crixus is me. Brilliant. Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course they don't Lloyd. I'm really not surprised you'd say that. What was out of line in the post that the moderator responded to? Please fill me in... Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, Reed, I and others have responded on this thread to crixus. You are welcome to read (or re-read) our posts.

And I won't engage in a back-and-forth with you on the justice of moderator actions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Absolutely. It's me. Never mind that I haven't had much time to post here at all, being so swamped with school. Never mind that I am more than happy to call you (and others) an idiot to your face, and need no avatar to hide behind. Yeah... crixus is me. Brilliant.

I don't believe crixus is Mike Reed's sockpuppet. I do suspect that "being so swamped with school" is affecting Mike's temperament, if not his judgment.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Mike Reed]

Well, Reed, I and others have responded on this thread to crixus. You are welcome to read (or re-read) our posts.

And I won't engage in a back-and-forth with you on the justice of moderator actions.

*IF* there was a level justice in their decision, then they needed to show this by replying to a different post. The one they responded to was harmless and violated no rules of the forum.

[Stargazer]

Absolutely. It's me. Never mind that I haven't had much time to post here at all, being so swamped with school. Never mind that I am more than happy to call you an idiot to your face, and need no avatar to hide behind. Yeah... crixus is me. Brilliant.

I MAY be an idiot. I've been called worse, thanks.

But you responded to a Mod telling crixus to tone it down, worded AS IF you were crixus.

It sounded odd to me, and you can call me an idiot to my face all you want and it won't hurt. I am a nobody here, in any case. But crixus has been posting some very insulting remarks to Dan Peterson (mostly in third person, oddly enough), and as far as I can tell he or she is completely off-base.

I apologize if you truly are not crixus.

[Stargazer]

*IF* there was a level justice in their decision, then they needed to show this by replying to a different post. The one they responded to was harmless and violated no rules of the forum.

crixus entire posting history is making ridiculous accusations against Dan Peterson on this thread, and if a mod decided to tell him to tone it down, do you think he is obligated to pick the most egregious one, or perhaps the LAST one in the thread, so crixus might actually READ it?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

*IF* there was a level justice in their decision, then they needed to show this by replying to a different post. The one they responded to was harmless and violated no rules of the forum.

I took it as responding to the latest post with a directive that applies generally to the prior posts as well. That's typical moderator behavior, in my observation.

But this is outside my baliwick, so I'll leave you to deal with them, as the case may be.

[Mike Reed]

I MAY be an idiot. I've been called worse, thanks.

But you responded to a Mod telling crixus to tone it down, worded AS IF you were crixus.

Nope. I am responding like I always do, when I think a moderator is acting unjustly. I would do the same for you, but that wouldnt be needed. Moderators here (although not all... some are actuallly quite ballanced) tend to be onesided in their trigger-happy enforcement. So you are safe.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

I MAY be an idiot. I've been called worse, thanks.

For the record... I don't think you are one. But if I were to think it, and wanted to say so... I would. I don't need/want an avatar for that. That is all. And yes... Lloyd's probably right about me being swamped effecting my temperment. Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

crixus entire posting history...

I am unaware of his/her entire posting history. All I am aware of is the couple posts I've read in this thread, and based on that I'd say that the censorship is unwarranted. But maybe I am wrong. Feel free to repost such offensive statements from this thread.

[Stargazer]

Nope. I am responding like I always do, when I think a moderator is acting unjustly. I would do the same for you, but that wouldnt be needed. Moderators here (although not all... some are actuallly quite ballanced) tend to be onesided in their trigger-happy enforcement. So you are safe.

Maybe I'm the one who needs to chill. I was about to tell you to go back and reread your response to the Mod telling crixus to tone it down and tell me that it does not sound like you're accidentally responding as "Mike Reed" in the "crixus" voice. I just followed my own advice and dammitall I MISREAD IT! Man, I feel like a REAL idiot now.

And I had a hard time believing it, because in my experience you are not obliviously obtuse, disingenuous and insulting. But it looked for all the world like it might have been.

I apologize for this, very humbly. I really need to go to bed before I hose something else up.

Where is there a self-flagellation smiley when you need one?

As my Latin teacher once said: Mea Culpa, mea Culpa, mea Maxima Culpa.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Stargazer

[Mike Reed]

I just followed my own advice and dammitall I MISREAD IT! Man, I feel like a REAL idiot now.

Come on now... it's not a big deal.

And I had a hard time believing it, because in my experience you are not obliviously obtuse, disingenuous and insulting. But it looked for all the world like it might have been.

I appreciate that... although I am reluctant to accepting such at the expense of indirectly insulting crixus. Maybe I need to read more carefully... but the few posts of his/her that I read, althoug harsh, I found to be really quite articulate, and even though they were perhaps a bit biting, were persuasively written and worthy of rebuttal. At least, that's how I read them.

I apologize for this, very humbly. I really need to go to bed before I hose something else up.

Where is there a self-flagellation smiley when you need one?

Just do it with a wet noodle, and it will be well deserved. Edited May 15, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Bikeemikey]

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."

Smart was misrepresented.

She started the 12 mins speech with references to how terrible she felt when she was raped. She also specially said it is totally inappropriate for people to engage the question of why didn't you runaway.

The emphasis of her talk was on the power the love of her family had in contributing to her survival.

At the end she made a brief reference to an entirely inappropriate analogy often used with in mormon culture about virtue. (I also happen to think its likely that this happened after her captivity).

However, rather than reasonable articles like, "what is the impact of our teaching on women's feelings of self-worth", we got a range of articles based on headings like, "abstinence teaching stops you running away from rapists", the church stance on chastity contributed to Elizabeths smarts captivity".

No one I have read is objecting to this being a good catalyst for a broader LDS conversation about chastity education in the church. I personally don't think that Joanna brooks posting is as bad as many hear are making.

The posts that ran with the negative message about church chastity education contributing to Smarts captivity did so through selective quotes and by divorcing those quotes from the obvious and intended message of talk.

That I believe is the primary objection.

[teddyaware]

Smart was misrepresented.

She started the 12 mins speech with references to how terrible she felt when she was raped. She also specially said it is totally inappropriate for people to engage the question of why didn't you runaway.

The emphasis of her talk was on the power the love of her family had in contributing to her survival.

At the end she made a brief reference to an entirely inappropriate analogy often used with in mormon culture about virtue. (I also happen to think its likely that this happened after her captivity).

However, rather than reasonable articles like, "what is the impact of our teaching on women's feelings of self-worth", we got a range of articles based on headings like, "abstinence teaching stops you running away from rapists", the church stance on chastity contributed to Elizabeths smarts captivity".

No one I have read is objecting to this being a good catalyst for a broader LDS conversation about chastity education in the church. I personally don't think that Joanna brooks posting is as bad as many hear are making.

The posts that ran with the negative message about church chastity education contributing to Smarts captivity did so through selective quotes and by divorcing those quotes from the obvious and intended message of talk.

That I believe is the primary objection.

With the above you've accurately, insightfully, and succinctly gotten to what should have been the heart of the matter discussed on this thread and exposed the bashers for their intellectual and analytical dishonesty. When a church basher has an unfair point to make, a balanced and fair-minded approach to the subject at hand on their part would only undermine and stymie their attempts at bashing.

Edited May 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Maybe I'm the one who needs to chill. I was about to tell you to go back and reread your response to the Mod telling crixus to tone it down and tell me that it does not sound like you're accidentally responding as "Mike Reed" in the "crixus" voice. I just followed my own advice and dammitall I MISREAD IT! Man, I feel like a REAL idiot now.

And I had a hard time believing it, because in my experience you are not obliviously obtuse, disingenuous and insulting. But it looked for all the world like it might have been.

I apologize for this, very humbly. I really need to go to bed before I hose something else up.

Where is there a self-flagellation smiley when you need one?

As my Latin teacher once said: Mea Culpa, mea Culpa, mea Maxima Culpa.

Stargazer, I admire you for admitting wrongdoing, that's called integrity. Two thumbs up!

[Darren10]

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.

You're the second person that I'm aware of that said Dan did not read Elizabeth Smart's words. How in the world you conclude this is beyond me.

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.

Read my very first post, sir. I named that blogger. I got it be following thew links from Dan's original post at Patheos.

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."

UPDATE: Oops, you're the only one who has said Dan has not read Smart's words. It was your second time to say as much when I quoted you.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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

Nope, he don't.

[Darren10]

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

Not in the case of Rape, at least, not before God. However, who can blame her for feeling "dirty" after it happened? What kept her going is he knowledge of [infinite (my word)] worth before God and the unconditional love of her family. That's the LDS influence during her captivity, not feeling like "chewed gum" because of her captor.

​

Elizabeth interpreted this as self-worth.

NOT during her captivity.