This topic is now closed to further replies.
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
If someone hasn't been through the temple, and never made covenants to live the law of chastity, is it optional for them? Could they be active LDS and openly not follow the law of chastity (assuming they never intend to set foot in the temple)? Would they be subject to any discipline, or have any limits placed on their activity (outside of the temple, of course)?
This guy makes some interesting points. He claims that his church experience consisted of too much rhetoric on rules and not enough teachings the atonement. Has anybody else had the same experience?
Thank You, Brother Daniel Peterson, For Posting This Update On Elizabeth Smart And The Law Of ChastityBy Darren10
As was brought to the attention here on Mormon Dialogue, Joanna Brooks cited Elizabeth Smart's "own words" to depict a highly negative spotlight on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As Brother peterson writes:
So far as I know, the "remaks" were made by Joanna Brooks 9either originating the negative LDS issue or perpetuating from other sources) who cited Smart during her (Smart's) speech at John Hopkins University regarding human trafficking. Like Brother Peterson, I was a bit dumbfounded as my upbringing in the LDS Church never lead me anywhere near believing that a person who was raped was worthless or undesirable. To the contrary, my LDS view of God above is that of mercy, pain, love, and unconditional acceptance of their personal worth before Him of any of his daughters who was raped during mortality.
Brother Peterson links his post to an article written by, if I'm not mistaken, Andrea Watcott, at "createwritebalance"'s website. Whatcott writes (bold mine):
After looking into the allegations of Elizabeth Smart not escaping her rapist due to a felling of unworthiness via the chastity standards set forth by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Whatcott reports:
YES!!! that is the LDS message. That no matter the extent of Elizabeth Smart's horrific ordeal being captive, she was of great worth and knew her parents would unconditionally love her and accept her.
Brotehr Peterson points out that Elizabeth Smart has recovered "remarkably well", served a full-time LDS mission in France and is sealed in the temple. Like Brother Peterson, I find this hardly evidence that her church rendered her a helpless victim of rape.
Frankly, I find Joanna Brooks, of which I have agreed many times regarding LDS issues, as an example of how certain feminist agenda can warp one's view to see things that do not exist. In this case, Brooks bore false witness against the LDS church.
Daniel Peterson's post: A Much-Needed Correction regarding Elizabeth Smart and Church Teachings Regarding Chastity, Abstinence, and Rape
createwritebalance link: Don’t believe everything you read in the news
Direct link to Elizabeth Smart's speech as already linked in one of my above citations: http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/elizabeth-smart-speaks-at-johns-hopkins-human-trafficking-forum-486.shtml#.UYhPJ7WG32u
I found an article that was quite thought provoking (modesty, provoking, get my drift? yea, sorry...) and I wanted to share it here to see what kind of discussion we could get going. It is about modesty, and how its effects may actually be quite different from what we may generally suppose. Though this account may be anecdotal, there are probably some women / girls out there who could identify with the substance of this article.
Here are a couple of quotes from it:
"Modesty taught me that what I looked like was what mattered most of all."
"Modesty made me objectify myself."
"When you argue that what’s modest and what isn’t is a valid concern for women, you tell them that their appearance matters most. You objectify them."
"You cannot consider women full human beings unless you recognize that their lives do not revolve around the male sex drive."
Now, to get sort of a common ground understanding of what is understood by modesty, here is an excerpt of what the Church's website has to say about it:
We see in the first paragraph that modesty is considered in the Church not only in matters of dress, but in language and behavior as well. So I guess we could say that the Church has sort of a broader approach. However, I think that modesty is typically understood and conceptualized primarily in terms of dress and grooming, and that those are the particular aspects most emphasized in Church settings.
Here are some questions that may help the discussion (pick whichever):
Was this woman wrongly taught about modesty? If you think so, could you elaborate on what was wrong with the way she was taught and what would have been a better way?
Are there different ways to teach modesty, and is there a better way to teach it?
Do you think it would have mattered at all how this woman was taught about modesty? Meaning, would she have perceive modesty in the same way in the end no matter how it would have been taught?
Don't feel you have to stick to those questions, and feel free to contribute with any (relevant) comments.