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

[Tacenda]

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.

​

NOT during her captivity.

If that teacher said it after her captivity, it's just as bad. Hurts just as much. If I remember right, I think Elizabeth did combine the lovely analogy (not!) with people asking why she didn't run, or why someone doesn't run. Maybe that was the jumpstart for Joanna to feel she needed to write about it. Edited May 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Darren10]

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.

Now yer gettin' it, laddy.

Dan doesn't know exactly who he is correcting, apparently.

No, you obviously did not read Dan's post carefully. Here's from his post:

I’ve been puzzled, over recent days, by certain remarks attributed to Elizabeth Smart — remarks in which she seems to criticize, rather harshly, what she had been taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding chastity

Dan's aware of "certain remarks attributed to Elizabeth Smart". These remarks, Dan qualifies as Elizabeth Smart ciriticizing the Curch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who knws anything about said criticism is that the LDS Church's teachings of chastity bear, at least in part, to prolonging her captivity be a sexual predator. This is all cleared up in Dan's second paragraph.

Then there's this:

Her criticisms didn’t seem consistent with what I had heard and read from her before. I specifically recall her saying that it was her church’s and her parents’ teaching that she is a daughter of God that had helped her to retain the sense that, despite Mitchell’s abuse, she was valuable and valued, not worthless.

Note that Dan switches from reading comments attributed to Smart to recalling what she "said". This, it seems, is Dan relating what he personally heard straight from Elizabeth Smart's own mouth live, in her presence. From what Dan *hears* Smart witnessed that she always retained a hope and a sense of worthfulness. Smart also retained a faith in God to help her through her captivity. This is in addition to Dan mentioning how he testified at the Smart trial against her captor.

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.

Sir, attributing Dan's remarks as being based on rumors oposed to the "facts" is just sheer stupidity.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

If that teacher said it after her captivity, it's just as bad. Hurts just as much.

No disagreement there.

Maybe that was the jumpstart for Joanna to feel she needed to write about it.

You're probably right.

[Darren10]

He'd also know that the argument he constructed is made of straw.

"Say, have you all heard about Elizabeth Smart?

Edited May 15, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

What remarks? He never says. He just assures us he is going to "correct" them.

Here: http://www.bing.com/search?q=elizabeth+smart+and+chewing+gum+&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=elizabeth+smart+and+chewing+gum&sc=1-31&sp=-1&sk=&ghc=2

I don't know of anyone in the media or anywhere else who has made this argument that the Church says raped victims lose their self-worth.

LoL - read my link right above. Educate yourself. Also, that's what Joanna Brooks said. That having out a marriage sex, one should feel bad as per LDS teachings both from official church sources as well as the cultural application of those sources.

[Darren10]

calmoriah #164;

Excellent post. And let's point out that the love and acceptance Elizabeth Smart's parents had for her is in perfect compliance with LDS official teaching.

[Darren10]

And your assertion that crixus is persuasive? Amazing.

Agreed.

[Darren10]

I am a nobody here, .

I'll take you over a billion of a certain two others here anyday, sir.

[Nemesis]

Thread Closed. Please leave the moderating to us.

(Legion)

[USU78]

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.

[Darren10]

Thread Closed. Please leave the moderating to us.

(Legion)

Good thing I got my two cents worth in.

[USU78]

If that teacher said it after her captivity, it's just as bad. Hurts just as much. If I remember right, I think Elizabeth did combine the lovely analogy (not!) with people asking why she didn't run, or why someone doesn't run. Maybe that was the jumpstart for Joanna to feel she needed to write about it.

It's actually far worse than that. A teacher or any other adult in any and every setting who, having Soeur Smart in her class, is a Nimrod First Class and ought to be beaten and shunned. No sentient person could possibly think that analogy would do anything other than make her feel terrible.

[Calm]

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.

I think if that article had come after another one where she dealt with the focus of Sister Smart's talk instead of only what she cared about I would have been fine with it. As it stands though, it is a well written, slightly unbalanced demonstration of how church members present church teachings and false doctrines (and I have decided for myself that any analogy that equates a daughter of God to something that is cheap and only can be acted upon and is so one dimensional must be false doctrine....I do not believe that God would want any of his daughters being told they are like chewed up gum or a licked cupcake or whatever). I probably wouldn't be bothered by the imbalance between presenting the actual teachings while addressing the false doctrines that creep in and sometimes stay way too long or anything else (as she did present some decent examples of correct teachings and she made a point of it that they would not be found in the manuals) if she hadn't so totally ignored what else Sister Smart said. It make me feel Brooks was for the most part using her, not listening and learning from her as we all should be doing. Like she had received an article with a link with a postit note attached saying "Hey, this looks good, what do you think we can make of it?" instead of something like "This woman has something to say, let's make sure it gets out there".

[Calm]

No disagreement there.

You're probably right.

I still read it as happening before her rape and then when she is left alone after the rape and begins feeling the sense of worthlessness and lost of meaning, she remembers that lesson and it crystalizes her feelings for her as she realizes she is now the object in that lesson.

However, because of the separation from telling of her captivity, it is possible that it was after her freedom, (does she mention which school she heard it in....I don't believe so, just which school she was going to when kidnapped) and she was thinking through the lesson "that's me".

But I've watched it about a dozen times now and it still strikes me as happening prior to the kidnapping and thus having an influence on her perceptions at the time of the first rape. But there is a distance from it as she seems to make a point of it that it was not why she didn't run, but she could understand why others might...and this would make more sense if she heard it afterwards.

[cinepro]

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.

That's why it's still a terrible analogy.

As calmoriah pointed out, even if you tell someone that God has made this previously chewed gum whole, they're still not going to want it. Literally speaking. If you showed someone a fresh piece of gum and told them it had been previously chewed and stuck to the floor of a movie theater, but through an amazing process it has been restored to its original form of flavor and sanitation, people still aren't going to want to chew it. There is no demand for recycled gum.

So even if we invent some magical process for chewed gum and add that to the analogy, it's still teaching the wrong lesson.

The analogy only works if we use a mechanism that people are familiar and comfortable with for restoring something to a like-new condition.

But on the other hand, I will also say what some people don't want to say, and that is that having pre-marital sex (voluntary or involuntary) can introduce lasting emotional and physical effects that can stay with a person for the rest of their life, even after repentance. So while "chewed gum" is the wrong analogy (they're not worthless), they will never be the same as they were before.

Repentance and God can do a lot in the eternal and spiritual sense, but we're all still mortal and human.

Edited May 15, 2013 by cinepro

[Teancum]

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.

Bingo!

[Scott Lloyd]

What happened? I thought the thread was closed. And by the senior admin, at that.

[Tacenda]

That's why it's still a terrible analogy.

As calmoriah pointed out, even if you tell someone that God has made this previously chewed gum whole, they're still not going to want it. Literally speaking. If you showed someone a fresh piece of gum and told them it had been previously chewed and stuck to the floor of a movie theater, but through an amazing process it has been restored to its original form of flavor and sanitation, people still aren't going to want to chew it. There is no demand for recycled gum.

So even if we invent some magical process for chewed gum and add that to the analogy, it's still teaching the wrong lesson.

The analogy only works if we use a mechanism that people are familiar and comfortable with for restoring something to a like-new condition.

But on the other hand, I will also say what some people don't want to say, and that is that having pre-marital sex (voluntary or involuntary) can introduce lasting emotional and physical effects that can stay with a person for the rest of their life, even after repentance. So while "chewed gum" is the wrong analogy (they're not worthless), they will never be the same as they were before.

Repentance and God can do a lot in the eternal and spiritual sense, but we're all still mortal and human.

So true, so true. I get upset at the way my husband treats anyone that has not lived chastity before marriage. Like say, the last bachelor stars, if you've ever watched that show, in it the bachelor that starred last season, didn't want to go to the overnighter with anyone and consumate their relationship before marriage. He'd made a vow to himself that he would save it till marriage, but he wasn't a virgin because he had broken it during college I believe, and apparently wanted to do better. My husband always picks on the bachelor stars and says they're all horn dogs. Even this most recent bachelor who was not going to bed with anyone until marriage. I thought, can't my husband give this guy a break? But no, since he'd not kept chase in college he still condemned him. Not even understanding that the guy might have repented for it. He doesn't quite forgive anyone that breaks the law of chastity, maybe he has hang ups because he feels he missed out secretly, I don't know. But it is a point of contention, when he thinks so poorly of people that make mistakes, like he doesn't get the atonement as it is supposed to be. Like so many out there possibly. Even though this has nothing to do with Elizabeth's case, it pertains to some that have made mistakes, we shouldn't make them feel used either, IMO.

[Calm]

What happened? I thought the thread was closed. And by the senior admin, at that.

There are two threads going on the same topic, three if you count the one in In the Newss...maybe they closed the wrong one or the other was closed and you lost track? Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

calmoriah #164;

Excellent post. And let's point out that the love and acceptance Elizabeth Smart's parents had for her is in perfect compliance with LDS official teaching.

Thank you, though I was hoping that it was my later massive one that likely most won't get through....I have to admit I wrote it while stoned...really shouldn't keep typing when the drug is working so hard to put me to sleep, but I had just gotten really annoyed by what was going on here and elsewhere and after listening yet again, I had to say something....lots of things actually.

[Calm]

It's actually far worse than that. A teacher or any other adult in any and every setting who, having Soeur Smart in her class, is a Nimrod First Class and ought to be beaten and shunned. No sentient person could possibly think that analogy would do anything other than make her feel terrible.

Which is probably why I made the assumption that it was made prior to her kidnapping.

[Calm]

There is no demand for recycled gum.

Is there a demand for any recycled food? And that is labeled that way, that is?

[Calm]

He doesn't quite forgive anyone that breaks the law of chastity, maybe he has hang ups because he feels he missed out secretly, I don't know. But it is a point of contention, when he thinks so poorly of people that make mistakes, like he doesn't get the atonement as it is supposed to be. Like so many out there possibly. Even though this has nothing to do with Elizabeth's case, it pertains to some that have made mistakes, we shouldn't make them feel used either, IMO.

Perhaps it is part of the feeling it isn't fair or just, like the labourers in the vineyard who worked all day and then the Lord paid them the same as he paid those who came the last hour. He feels he deserves more for being more obedient. He would be right in almost every other context.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-laborers-in-the-vineyard?lang=eng

And I agree, when someone has truly repented we need to treat them with the same respect, fellowship, etc. as one who has not needed to repent. We really need to remember to treat those who are currently sinning with respect they deserve as children of God and not treat them as scum or something equally undesirable even if that is how they treat themselves. Holding people accountable for their actions is actually a sign that you see them as more than they act right now, that you believe they have potential. Why bother correcting someone who will be forever in error, you correct people you believe can and will likely change.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are two threads going on the same topic, three if you count the one in In the Newss...maybe they closed the wrong one or the other was closed and you lost track?

I'm going by post #209 herein.

Nemesis said:

Thread Closed. Please leave the moderating to us.

Presumably, this was because Mike Reed got on his high horse about the reprimand given to crixus.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I'm going by post #209 herein.

Nemesis said:

Ah! The ways of the mods are a mystery.