Girls raised in the Church

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Sorry, but that first quote is nonsense. Anyone who has lost a son or daughter knows that such a starement is made in ignorance. My son or daughter will be welcomed home even if they have lost their virginity, and that is regardless of the events surrounding it. 

My son died 10 years ago. The pain does not go over, it does not go away. A son or daughter can be unclean. That can be cleaned up. Dead? There is no cleaning up or coming back. 

Anyone who wishes their child dead rather than unclean is heartless or ridiculously uninformed or ignorant. 

Imagine the pain our Father feels when he can no longer welcome home his children because of their choices.
His infinite love for us is greater than any love we can feel.  So must be his heartbreak.

Edited September 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Eek!]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think she was chaste but that, as a victim, something was taken. Jesus spoke of virtue leaving him, power. 

Of course something is taken when a woman is raped.  Is that not obvious?

Jesus felt power flowing through Him, but His virtue was not taken, and there is no implication that it was.  Different use of the term, not applicable.  

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Virtue/power can be taken from the innocent and pure. 

Let's just use the word "virtue" in the interest of clarity and not conflate with the meaning of the word implied in the passage about Jesus healing the woman. 

Here is what virtue means:  Conformity to a standard of right; morality; a particular moral excellence.

Virtue cannot be taken by force, or else free agency is a sham.  

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Is it possible that insisting so much on what the innocence of victims implies, even with good intentions, that the likelihood of such crime being whitewashed away is increased?

No.  Those are two completely different issues. 

Mormon's choice of words and/or Joseph Smith's translation of those words leaves a lot to be desired, because they seem to imply that a woman's moral excellence can be taken by force.   Societies that believe such sometimes murder women and girls who are victims of rape.  I'm not saying anyone on this board is advocating that, but I am pointing out what the fruit of that tree can look like.  

Edited September 8, 2016 by Eek!

[bcuzbcuz]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Imagine the pain our Father feels when he can no longer welcome home his children because of their choices.
His infinite love for us is greater than any love we can feel.  So must be his heartbreak.

One moment of losing virginity does not cut a person, male or female, off from being welcomed home. You are entirely wrong in your cold analysis. Repentance is a doctrine of the church that you should maybe read more about. 

You're saying god will not welcome home a person because of their choices. Read the story of the prodigal son. Your god sounds more like the god of the old testament. Belief in Christ qualifies much higher than your statement of chastity 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

One moment of losing virginity does not cut a person, male or female, off from being welcomed home. You are entirely wrong in your cold analysis. Repentance is a doctrine of the church that you should maybe read more about.

You're saying god will not welcome home a person because of their choices. Read the story of the prodigal son. Your god sounds more like the god of the old testament. Belief in Christ qualifies much higher than your statement of chastity

I never said any such thing.  And I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.
Repentance is absolutely possible.
But not forever and not in every situation.  Fortunately only God can judge that.

Belief in Christ requires the belief in atonement and repentance.  But it also recognizes that there will be a "final" judgment.

[bcuzbcuz]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I never said any such thing.  And I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.
Repentance is absolutely possible.
But not forever and not in every situation.  Fortunately only God can judge that.

Belief in Christ requires the belief in atonement and repentance.  But it also recognizes that there will be a "final" judgment.

Do you agree with Spencer W Kimball that death is to prefer over a child coming home unclean? To me that sounds like an endorsement of the honour killings in some countries where a daughter can be killed because she brings shame on her family.

If you have a son or daughter who lives an unclean life, is lt better to kill them (if they don't have the fortitude to kill themselves) once they have made a transgression of their chastity?

Better dead than unclean were SWK's words.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Do you agree with Spencer W Kimball that death is to prefer over a child coming home unclean? To me that sounds like an endorsement of the honour killings in some countries where a daughter can be killed because she brings shame on her family.

If you have a son or daughter who lives an unclean life, is lt better to kill them (if they don't have the fortitude to kill themselves) once they have made a transgression of their chastity?

Better dead than unclean were SWK's words.

No, I don't agree with SWK at all.
Because they are still in a position to repent.

I also agree with God that once the time for repentance is past for some it would have been better that they were never born because of their sins.
But that is not for a kid who made a mistake.  I just try to look at what has been revealed concerning eternity too.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

perhaps your experience unique and not representative of the entire church.

Perhaps yours isn't as well. 

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Thank you for pointing out that there is no double standard in the church.  If anything, the law of chastity is more severely taught to the men than the women.

Other than that, thank you for pointing me to this excellent talk.

 

So you agree with the better dead than lose one's virginity teaching?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Imagine the pain our Father feels when he can no longer welcome home his children because of their choices.
His infinite love for us is greater than any love we can feel.  So must be his heartbreak.

1: Why can God not welcome anyone home because of their choices? 

2:  If God's love is infinite and greater than any love we can feel (how you know what God's love is like and greater than any love we can feel is beyond me. Does God share this with you somehow?) than with such great love God should be the most loving and accepting entity or being that exists.  I mean if I can still love my rebellious son and accept him for who he is than I must love better than God who seemingly for some reason based on your comment above is not able to do this.

Perhaps you like my Calvinist friends take the position that over all God is Holy and nothing unholy can be in God's presence.  Since we are God's creations God can do with us whatever God want.  He can dash us to pieces like the potter does with his clay products he is not happy with (See Paul and Romans).  So while God may love us he can just burn us forever if God wants to..... 

Your comments above sort of remind me of my Calvinist firend's ideas.

[Teancum]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I don't agree with SWK at all.
Because they are still in a position to repent.

I also agree with God that once the time for repentance is past for some it would have been better that they were never born because of their sins.
But that is not for a kid who made a mistake.  I just try to look at what has been revealed concerning eternity too.

You sure disagree with a lot of those you believe God was speaking to as a prophet.  But it is good to know your disagree.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1: Why can God not welcome anyone home because of their choices? 

D&C 76:111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared; 
112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

I Nephi 10:21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

 

2:  If God's love is infinite and greater than any love we can feel God should be the most loving and accepting entity or being that exists.  I mean if I can still love my rebellious son and accept him for who he is than I must love better than God who seemingly for some reason based on your comment above is not able to do this.

You are once again (as so many do) confusing love with acceptance.  They are NOT the same.
Romans 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
D&C 1:31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

 

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You sure disagree with a lot of those you believe God was speaking to as a prophet.  But it is good to know your disagree.

You know I do.  Especially when they are not speaking by revelation and inspiration.
I do not accept prophets blindly.  There is a pattern well established in scripture that does not change.  No matter what prophet is speaking.

Edited September 8, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

 

You know I do.  Especially when they are not speaking by revelation and inspiration.
I do not accept prophets blindly.  There is a pattern well established in scripture that does not change.  No matter what prophet is speaking.

That is great. Then why do you accept this blindly when they clearly conflict with what you say you believe about God's infinite love.  And yes love is also acceptance.  It does not do much good to say I love you but go away because you do things differently than I would.

D&C 76:111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared; 
112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

I Nephi 10:21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

 

You are once again (as so many do) confusing love with acceptance.  They are NOT the same.
Romans 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
D&C 1:31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

 

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

In your hypothetical, do you believe that the woman is still chaste and virtuous after she was raped?  

For the record, I do.  

Imo Mormon's wording was poorly chosen.  It happens. 

Of course I believe the woman is still chaste and virtuous, for crying out loud!  After all, I am a Latter-day Saint. It has always been perfectly obvious to me that Mormon was speaking only of the very traumatic physical and emotional consequences of rape (I.e. women saving themselves for their husbands only, but being physically and emotionally deprived of that blessing by wicked men). Before this unnecessary controversy appeared on this board, I had read Mormon 9:9 many times and it never even once dawned on me that Mormon might be suggesting innocent rape victims are somehow rendered morally impure by rape. Each time I read his words I knew for a certainty he was only speaking of the painful physical and emotional consequences of rape. It seems to me the only people who could think Mormon's meaning is that innocent victims of rape are made morally impure by an evil deed they wanted absolutely no part of are spiritually immature people who only have a surface understanding of the Restored Gospel and who have a limited understanding of the rest of the Book of Mormon. To me, this whole controversy is ridiculous and is being fed by the kind of people who seen to enjoy finding supposed fault in the prophets and the scriptures.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Eek!]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Of course I believe the woman is still chaste and virtuous, for crying out loud! 

It sounded to me like you were justaposing the woman's 40 years of virtue with her status after being raped at age 41.  I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.  

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Of course I believe the woman is still chaste and virtuous, for crying out loud!  After all, I am a Latter-day Saint. It has always been perfectly obvious to me that Mormon was speaking only of the very traumatic physical and emotional consequences of rape (I.e. women saving themselves for their husbands only, but being physically and emotionally deprived of that blessing by wicked men). Before this unnecessary controversy appeared on this board, I had read Mormon 9:9 many times and it never even once dawned on me that Mormon might be suggesting innocent rape victims are somehow rendered morally impure by rape. Each time I read his words I knew for a certainty he was only speaking of the painful physical and emotional consequences of rape. It seems to me the only people who could think Mormon's meaning is that innocent victims of rape are made morally impure by and evil deed they wanted absolutely no part of are spiritually immature people who only have a surface understanding of the Restored Gospel and who have a limited understanding of the rest of the Book of Mormon. To me, this whole controversy is ridiculous and is being fed by the kind of people who seen to enjoy finding supposed fault in the prophets and the scriptures.

I find it very ironic that this description "It seems to me the only people who could think Mormon's meaning is that innocent victims of rape are made morally impure by and evil deed they wanted absolutely no part of are spiritually immature people who only have a surface understanding of the Restored Gospel and who have a limited understanding of the rest of the Book of Mormon" actually probably fits most 12-18 year-old girls that are told to read Moroni 9:9 in their Personal Progress book to further their understanding of Virtue.  These are after all young women who are just learning about these things.  Misunderstandings have taken place and this is why this verse and object lessons teaching false doctrine should not be used when teaching young women with limited understanding of the Gospel and sexual topics.  Those of us pointing it out are not fault finders of the prophets and the scriptures but those who have seen carnage due to these objectifying lessons and know God does not want his daughters to be taught incorrect doctrine.

[Rivers]

I have always figured that the description in Moroni 9:9 is just a fancy way of saying that the women were raped.  It is a terrible verse to use in teaching the Law of Chastity.

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

What I highlighted in red is ironic to me. Chastity and virtue DO stand independently on their own and SHOULD not be associated with abuse.  THAT is why a scripture passage about war, rape, murder and cannibalism is out of context in a booklet (Personal Progress) teaching young women to be virtuous.      

It is not out of context because the primary point the leaders of the Church are usually trying to make when quoting this verse is that chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things." Their focus is most often not at all on the totally separate and distinct issue that wicked men are known to physically and emotionally traumatized and physically scar chaste and virtuous women by raping them. There are two separate and distinct issues presented in this verse and one can highlight one of these separate and distinct issues without putting a similar intense focus on the other. The two issues in question are: 1) In the eyes of God, chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things." and 2) Some chaste and virtuous women are at times forced by wicked men to engage in sexual activities against their will. Like walking and chewing gum at the same time, one can place intense focus on one of these two issues while putting little or no focus on the other. I'm utterly astounded some just don't get this. Do you really believe Mormon, Moroni and several presidents of the Church are spiritual ignoramuses and  fools?

[Bobbieaware]

23 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I find it very ironic that this description "It seems to me the only people who could think Mormon's meaning is that innocent victims of rape are made morally impure by and evil deed they wanted absolutely no part of are spiritually immature people who only have a surface understanding of the Restored Gospel and who have a limited understanding of the rest of the Book of Mormon" actually probably fits most 12-18 year-old girls that are told to read Moroni 9:9 in their Personal Progress book to further their understanding of Virtue.  These are after all young women who are just learning about these things.  Misunderstandings have taken place and this is why this verse and object lessons teaching false doctrine should not be used when teaching young women with limited understanding of the Gospel and sexual topics.  Those of us pointing it out are not fault finders of the prophets and the scriptures but those who have seen carnage due to these objectifying lessons and know God does not want his daughters to be taught incorrect doctrine.

Then before having them read the verse, carefully explain to them that Mormon isn't at all saying innocent rape victims are made morally impure by rape, just that they are often physically and emotionally harmed by rape. And then tell them to put a laser focus on the part of the verse that speaks of chastity and virtue as being "most dear and precious above all things." Simple. The kids I know would have no problem understanding these points.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Then before having them read the verse, carefully explain to them that Mormon isn't at all saying innocent rape victims are made morally impure by rape, just that they are often physically and emotionally harmed by rape. And then tell them to put a laser focus on the part of the verse that speaks of chastity and virtue as being "most dear and precious above all things." Simple. The kids I know would have no problem understanding these points.

Wouldn't that be nice if it was explained in the lesson manuals and in the Personal Progress book.  Personal progress is personal after all and many times girls do their personal progress alone.  I know, since I've served in Young Women's and have 4 daughters, these nuances are not explained. (I now explain them thoroughly to my own daughters because I learned too late this was an actual problem.)  I've never seen them explained in a class setting most likely because they are not explained in writing in official manuals. Many, like you, ignore the words that are written because in your heart, you know what they seem to be trying to say.  The problem is the words, as written, can be misconstrued and devastating.  It's fixable so it should be fixed. 

[Bobbieaware]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Wouldn't that be nice if it was explained in the lesson manuals and in the Personal Progress book.  Personal progress is personal after all and many times girls do their personal progress alone.  I know, since I've served in Young Women's and have 4 daughters, these nuances are not explained. (I now explain them thoroughly to my own daughters because I learned too late this was an actual problem.)  I've never seen them explained in a class setting most likely because they are not explained in writing in official manuals. Many, like you, ignore the words that are written because in your heart, you know what they seem to be trying to say.  The problem is the words, as written, can be misconstrued and devastating.  It's fixable so it should be fixed. 

Good post. If at all possible, could you please copy and paste the section of the personal progress manual that contains Moroni 9:9. Thank you.

[bsjkki]

From the Personal Progress Book

"1. Virtue is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards. It includes chastity and purity. The power to create mortal life is an exalted power God has given His children. He has commanded that this power be used only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Study the meaning and importance of chastity and virtue by reading Moroni 9:9; Jacob 2:28; “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”; and the section on sexual purity in For the Strength of Youth. Also read Article of Faith number thirteenand Proverbs 31:10–31. In your journal write the promised blessings of being sexually clean and pure and your commitment to be chaste."

This is what they are sent to read:   9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—

They send young women to read this verse and if they read more for context it discusses cannibalism and murder.  Lovely.  This should not be included in the Virtue section of Personal Progress. The meaning of the words as written are too easily misunderstood.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

From the Personal Progress Book

"1. Virtue is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards. It includes chastity and purity. The power to create mortal life is an exalted power God has given His children. He has commanded that this power be used only between a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Study the meaning and importance of chastity and virtue by reading Moroni 9:9; Jacob 2:28; “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”; and the section on sexual purity in For the Strength of Youth. Also read Article of Faith number thirteenand Proverbs 31:10–31. In your journal write the promised blessings of being sexually clean and pure and your commitment to be chaste."

This is what they are sent to read:   9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—

They send young women to read this verse and if they read more for context it discusses cannibalism and murder.  Lovely.  This should not be included in the Virtue section of Personal Progress. The meaning of the words as written are too easily misunderstood.

Here's the problem: Have you ever wondered why this section references only a scant two verses of scripture? It's because, believe it or not, Moroni 9:9 and Jacob 2: 28 are just about the only two verses in all the standard works that go beyond simply stating that sexual purity is good and sexual immorality is bad. So the members of the committee who drew up this manual likely had a difficult decision to make (and I'm fairly sure they agonized over it): should they include only one of the two verses in all of scripture (Jacob 2:28) that says something more than sexual purity is good and God commands it, but leave out the only other verse of scripture (Moroni 9:9) that scores a real moral purity home run by having the great prophet Mormon himself testify that chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things." I'm fairly sure the decision wasn't arrived at lightly, but the committee probably decided to include Moroni 9:9, in spite of the ugly circumstances that caused Mormon to say what he said, because the committee thought it was more important for the young women to understand that chastity and virtue are "most dear and precious above all things" in spite of the ugliness that surrounds Mormon's great declaration of eternal truth. Unfortunately, this great doctrinal gem is found in the midst of some very ugly stuff. But even though it is found in the midst of ugly stuff, this testimonial by Mormon is the only verse in all of holy writ that speaks of moral purity in such exalted terms. So the verse was included in the hope that the young women would see and understand that, in spite of the ugly context, the verse contains a great scriptural diamond of eternal truth.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

. The fact that Mormon mentioned this glorious eternal verity in connection with rape is purely incidental. 

That makes no sense.  It was key to Mormon's comment that the form of chastity and virtue he was talking about was destroyed/"deprived" through violence.  It was in no way "incidental" but the focus of what he was saying.  And given his form of chastity and virtue had nothing to do with moral agency, it is not the same thing our leaders are generally discussing.

[Calm]

Quote

 it has always been perfectly obvious to me that in Moroni 9:9 Mormon is not at all conveying the idea that chaste and virtuous victims of rape are -- in spite of their innocence, chastity and virtue -- somehow morally stained or culpable for that rape.

And again you are completely ignoring what Mormon is actually saying so you can justify your claim of what you want him to be saying.

I am not suggesting that Mormon is saying they are morally stained, you are also ignoring what I am saying, but that is the implication if you insist that the verse is talking about the chastity you insist that it is.  I, otoh, stated his form of chastity has nothing to do with the moral agency of the victims so how in the world can I be saying he is saying they are morally culpable.  Whatever Mormon is talking about, when he says chastity and virtue can be deprived from someone without their willingness, we know he is not talking about the chastity and virtue that we desire to teach our youth and adults to live by as one of their standards.

And that is why it is so important we stop using this verse so that it doesn't confuse people who actually read it and don't just impose their own POV, otherwise they will have to believe that Mormon sees it as a possibility that abused victims are tainted morally by their abusers.  

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

"Let's suppose a 40 year-old woman manages to live a fully chaste and virtuous life for the entire span of her 40 years on earth, but then in beginning of her 41st year she is raped. What on earth does her being raped in her 41st year have anything to do with the fact that for over 40 years she was obedient to the Lord and lived a chaste and virtuous life? "

Nothing.  As you seem to acknowledge.  And the rest of your post appears to be a mass of confusion about the very simple point that Rain made.

Thus we can see how trying to shoehorn in the general view of chastity and virtue into a situation similar to Mormon's descriptions leads to confusion and nonsense.  Whatever Mormon is talking about in this verse, it is not the same thing our leaders are teaching, even if they choose to same wording due to the beauty of it.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm