Girls raised in the Church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

 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."

And it isn't the first time that LDS have taken a verse out of context because it sounds great in another context but messed up teaching what it actually meant to the original author.

Rather interesting don't you think that they had to resort to using a verse that had nothing to do with actual moral agency to teach, makes you wonder why there wasn't a more useful verse available. Or multiple verses for something you claim is the most important principle attached to exaltation if I remember correctly. Perhaps God didn't see the need to go into the detail you want it to go into or perhaps he didn't want chastity to be turned into a hobby horse.

Quote

The reason why leaders of the Church have used Moroni 9:9 when highlighting the importance of chastity and virtue is because it is ONE OF THE ONLY VERSES IN ALL OF HOLY WRIT that explains WHY chastity and virtue are important

And yet there are other subjects where there are probably hundreds of verses discussing the importance of faith, charity, hope...why so few when it came to chastity?  Why does it pop up in the middle of a verse describing horrors as almost an aside comment in what was a personal letter from a father to a son who was not teaching any principle that I can see save to share with his son his sorrow about what happened to their people when they turned their backs on God and that the son then included because he had the time and a few plates to fill.  Maybe God felt time and effort was better served elsewhere.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Imagine the pain our Father feels when he can no longer welcome home his children because of their choices.

But if they repent, he can welcome them fully, can he not?  Why can we not just tell these young men and women the story about the Prodigal Son, teach repentance rather than make suggestions that of "death before dishonor, whether it is dishonor over a sin of chastity or charity?  Certainly emphasize there is a huge cost to sin, that it can be hard to forsake sins once indulged in, that it can be hard to deal with the fallout of sin...but never, ever suggest that committing sin locks doors when the core of the Gospel is that no door is closed as long as we are willing to knock.

Death before dishonor is taken to extremes in way too many ways, to the point of implying some situations are dishonorable when they are not (repented sins, for example, somehow leaving us tainted)  Or even just exposure to situations requiring extreme measures to avoid.  Joanna Brooks has this extraordinarily weird blog where she is using the suicide of a poor woman as an example of the way we should stand on principle...as if suicide was her only option instead of sin; not only is she suggesting that Sis Peterson was inspired to refuse an inhumane order, she is implying that she was inspired to commit suicide rather than break her principles...even though the suicide occurred after she was removed from the compromising situation, after her stand for her principles was recognized and there was no more need for any sort of statement.  It is absurd and foolish and dangerous. (see http://religiondispatches.org/everyone-should-know-the-story-of-alyssa-peterson/ )

"Peterson, who grew up in Flagstaff, Arizona and served a Mormon mission in the Netherlands, joined the Army as an Arabic language specialist.  

Two days after she arrived at the Tal Afar air base prison, Peterson’s unit was ordered to apply “enhanced interrogation techniques” she considered inhumane and torturous.  

Alyssa said she couldn’t do it.  She couldn’t be two people.  She couldn’t be herself—a devout Mormon, a person of faith—while implementing torture.  

She was officially reprimanded for showing “empathy” to Iraqi detainees and reassigned to another unit.  Days later, she shot herself with her service rifle. 

Every Mormon should know the story of Alyssa Peterson because her story affirms that our tradition has the power to inspire its members to “dare to be different,” as the familiar Mormon slogan goes:  to hold to our principles even when it is difficult or unpopular."

How is the last, when it includes suicide as an option, significantly different than teaching someone it is better to die than be raped?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 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.

In no way is this comparable.  The 'death before dishonor' beliefs requires that death prevent the dishonor, not that it somehow removes the taint of sin nor does someone choosing for him/herself to stand on principle even if it means death equate in any way to someone else killing a person to prevent them from compromise against the wishes of the victim (in no way am I endorsing either as I don't believe it).

There are conditions that I believe one should be willing to die for, maybe even some extremely rare ones that suicide is appropriate.  I don't believe survival is the necessary or reasonable choice in all situations.  However, I cannot imagine that there is any sin that I can't just say no to when it comes to actual sexual sin and not horrific nonconsensual violent sexual attacks.  It doesn't even make sense to me to tell someone it is better to come home dead than unclean when speaking of sexual sin as if one would ever be in a situation where one thinks "well, I can have sex with this person or kill myself".  When it comes to be forced at gunpoint to have sex with someone where death is threatened by someone else, choice is removed and thus it is not a sin, there is no uncleanness that is the other choice (though one might choose death rather than go through torture, to me that could be a reasonable, rational choice, even to avoid rape might be reasonable for an individual but to avoid the pain and suffering of the act if it is so repugnant to the individual, but not because it somehow taints one...because it doesn't).  Nor was as far as we know Alyssa Peterson being told she had a choice between death and engaging in torture.  Court martial perhaps, but there is nothing to indicate that suicide was her only other option outside of agree to engage in torture.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

But if they repent, he can welcome them fully, can he not?  Why can we not just tell these young men and women the story about the Prodigal Son, teach repentance rather than make suggestions that of "death before dishonor, whether it is dishonor over a sin of chastity or charity?  Certainly emphasize there is a huge cost to sin, that it can be hard to forsake sins once indulged in, that it can be hard to deal with the fallout of sin...but never, ever suggest that committing sin locks doors when the core of the Gospel is that no door is closed as long as we are willing to knock.

Death before dishonor is taken to extremes in way too many ways, to the point of implying some situations are dishonorable when they are not (repented sins, for example, somehow leaving us tainted)  Or even just exposure to situations requiring extreme measures to avoid.  Joanna Brooks has this extraordinarily weird blog where she is using the suicide of a poor woman as an example of the way we should stand on principle...as if suicide was her only option instead of sin; not only is she suggesting that Sis Peterson was inspired to refuse an inhumane order, she is implying that she was inspired to commit suicide rather than break her principles...even though the suicide occurred after she was removed from the compromising situation, after her stand for her principles was recognized and there was no more need for any sort of statement.  It is absurd and foolish and dangerous. (see http://religiondispatches.org/everyone-should-know-the-story-of-alyssa-peterson/ )

"Peterson, who grew up in Flagstaff, Arizona and served a Mormon mission in the Netherlands, joined the Army as an Arabic language specialist.  

Two days after she arrived at the Tal Afar air base prison, Peterson’s unit was ordered to apply “enhanced interrogation techniques” she considered inhumane and torturous.  

Alyssa said she couldn’t do it.  She couldn’t be two people.  She couldn’t be herself—a devout Mormon, a person of faith—while implementing torture.  

She was officially reprimanded for showing “empathy” to Iraqi detainees and reassigned to another unit.  Days later, she shot herself with her service rifle. 

Every Mormon should know the story of Alyssa Peterson because her story affirms that our tradition has the power to inspire its members to “dare to be different,” as the familiar Mormon slogan goes:  to hold to our principles even when it is difficult or unpopular."

How is the last, when it includes suicide as an option, significantly different than teaching someone it is better to die than be raped?

You mean like this?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

"I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920. We heard the train whistle. In three minutes I would be on my way to Australia to fill a mission. In that short interval my father said to me, among other things, “My son, you are going a long way from home. Your mother and I, and your brothers and sisters, will be with you constantly in our thoughts and prayers; we shall rejoice with you in your successes, and we shall sorrow with you in your disappointments. When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

Also, it's Suicide Prevention Week, glad the church has some support for people.http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865661994/LDS-Church-launches-Preventing-Suicide-website-during-National-Suicide-Prevention-Week.html?pg=all

Maybe the church ought to put up disclosures, for some statements from past leaders!  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

IOW, almost every young man and woman in the Church.  It takes years to grow to spiritual maturity and it is rare that it happens by the time someone is 20, let alone a teenager.

[Calm]

 

4 hours 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. 

So will you write the curriculum people to ensure this gets put into the manuals so that all teachers understand that this is necessary to teach and place it in the books as well so that the girls when they study it on their own won't make the same mistake?

Quote

The kids I know would have no problem understanding these points.

Unfortunately the vast majority of times the verse is used, these points are not made, but neglected.  Hard to understand an argument that is never made.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You mean like this?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

"I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920. We heard the train whistle. In three minutes I would be on my way to Australia to fill a mission. In that short interval my father said to me, among other things, “My son, you are going a long way from home. Your mother and I, and your brothers and sisters, will be with you constantly in our thoughts and prayers; we shall rejoice with you in your successes, and we shall sorrow with you in your disappointments. When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

Also, it's Suicide Prevention Week, glad the church has some support for people.http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865661994/LDS-Church-launches-Preventing-Suicide-website-during-National-Suicide-Prevention-Week.html?pg=all

Maybe the church ought to put up disclosures, for some statements from past leaders!  

From the same talk.  Oh, this is so scary. 

President Clark, in a conference address in October 1938, said: “Chastity is fundamental to our life and to our civilization. If the race becomes unchaste, it will perish. Immorality has been basic to the destruction of mighty nations of the past; it will bring to dust the mighty nations of the present. …

“You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–38.)

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You mean like this?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng

 'But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

This is bizarre to me that it is actually presented as if there will ever be a typical or even somewhat rare situation where the choice is between sexual or other sin and death.  The only time anything sexual is truly associated with death is violent attack/rape and then again, someone raping a person is not a moral choice by the victim, so they are not unclean having lost their virtue.  But since rape is pretty much the only sexual activity that has to do with death, of course the mind goes there and the connection is 'if I don't die when raped, I am unclean, I have lost my virtue'.

There may be times that death is a rational reasonable and most important necessary choice rather than sin, there is iow no other choice to act save to sin or to die....but honestly, that is so far off the beaten path of teenage or young adult sexual activity, that it makes no sense to include advice that only applies to extreme situations in a talk to teenagers or young adults.  Maybe telling someone one should put in as much fight to resist personal sin as you would to breathe because spiritual life is as important as physical life or to fight immorality with the intensity that you might fight cancer (though I would be concerned that someone mentally off might think cutting themselves was being approved of), but I think I would prefer to teach chastity as I tend to teach seeking out all good things...using an analogy of school and how studying and paying attention in class and doing all those things to learn how to be a better person while avoiding the stuff that can make it harder to learn like staying up all night, not eating correctly, watching too much TV so that one might learn how to write better stories or do analysis one can learn chastity and virtue the same way...by studying examples, learning principles, avoiding situations that impede our learning of it, etc...and while we might at times make mistakes or even get a failing grade or worse be expelled, we can start again, take remedial classes even if necessary and by recommitting to the work, recommitting to learning, we will eventually be able to graduate having turned ourselves with the help of our teachers (and Teacher) into the kind of people we want to be, whether scientist, doctor, educator, businessperson, etc.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

IOW, almost every young man and woman in the Church.  It takes years to grow to spiritual maturity and it is rare that it happens by the time someone is 20, let alone a teenager.

Try to give youth some credit. Not every youth is a blithering idiot (although plenty are) I was always taught sin was an act of agency.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And it isn't the first time that LDS have taken a verse out of context because it sounds great in another context but messed up teaching what it actually meant to the original author.

Rather interesting don't you think that they had to resort to using a verse that had nothing to do with actual moral agency to teach, makes you wonder why there wasn't a more useful verse available. Or multiple verses for something you claim is the most important principle attached to exaltation if I remember correctly. Perhaps God didn't see the need to go into the detail you want it to go into or perhaps he didn't want chastity to be turned into a hobby horse.

And yet there are other subjects where there are probably hundreds of verses discussing the importance of faith, charity, hope...why so few when it came to chastity?  Why does it pop up in the middle of a verse describing horrors as almost an aside comment in what was a personal letter from a father to a son who was not teaching any principle that I can see save to share with his son his sorrow about what happened to their people when they turned their backs on God and that the son then included because he had the time and a few plates to fill.  Maybe God felt time and effort was better served elsewhere.

Thanks for honoring my preference to keep things simple and take things one point at a time by inundating me with a slew of rude and disrespectful posts that seem to have been deliberately sent in a barrage all at once. it's late out here in the east, so I'll answer only one of your points for now:

1) The raped Lamanite women were deprived of the opportunity to continue to have bodies and minds untraumatised by violent non-consensual sex. Rape victims suffer very real deprivations. Deprivation of feeling safe, deprivation of peace of mind, deprivation of the right to choose to have sexual relations with only one man of your own choice to whom you are lawfully wedded, deprivation of being able to faithfully abide by an overwhelmingly important principle of the gospel without having to endure the misery-inducing emotions that all-too-often follow in the wake of rape, deprivation of the right to feel joyful when your husband touches you because the rape has wreaked havoc with your emotions, as sexual activity conjures up images of the time when you were brutally violated, deprivation of the joy of having your husband want and desire you without him having to worry he may cause you to have flashbacks to the time and place when you were violated, deprivation of feeling clean, deprivation of knowing your husband is the only one who has entered the inner sanctum of your body, deprivation of your free agency, and on and on and on. Rape has very real and incredibly brutal physical and emotional consequences, and it is in these destructive consequences that the deprivation of which Mormon spoke are found.

But in spite of the multifold physical and emotional traumas of rape, in my own heart and mind I'm certain Mormon perfectly understood that a chaste and virtuous rape victim continues to be chaste and virtuous in the eyes of God and in the eyes of godly people. And It is for this very reason that the deprivations of which Mormon spoke are so tragic and sad. Because in spite of the fact that the rape victim continues to be chaste and virtuous in the eyes of God, nevertheless she is continually haunted by the sad reality that someone treated her as if she didn't deserve to be chaste and virtuous. And although she remains perfectly innocent victim, as a type of Christ she suffers bitterly and exquisitely. This is what Mormon meant when he used the word deprived. But if you want to believe Mormon was saying that beyond the traumas of rape innocent rape victims are also somehow left morally stained and spiritually impure, that is your right and prerogative. But as for me, I think better of the great and compassionate Nephite prophet known to us as Mormon.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Try to give youth some credit. Not every youth is a blithering idiot (although plenty are) I was always taught sin was an act of agency.

I give individual youth lots of credit.  As a longtime teacher and parent and once upon a time youth, I also know I can't always tell those who will get the nuances from those who don't.

We know that currently errors are being made by teachers.  People are still reporting they are being taught the wrong nail in the board analogy, the crushed cupcake or flower or chewed gum.  We are also being told still by teens and youth things that show that they don't properly understand the Atonement.  

So while there may be some and even many that we don't need to worry about, that doesn't remove those who we should be worrying about. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Danzo]

47 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

From the same talk.  Oh, this is so scary. 

President Clark, in a conference address in October 1938, said: “Chastity is fundamental to our life and to our civilization. If the race becomes unchaste, it will perish. Immorality has been basic to the destruction of mighty nations of the past; it will bring to dust the mighty nations of the present. …

“You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–38.)

It seems you like to use the past church sayings to discredit the current church a lot. How many youth are reading these obscure quotes that you are trying to protect them from anyways? Do you spend your time looking over obscure things taught at schools in the thirties to smear current schools?  Do you look at political speeches in the thirties to discredit America today?

Or do you reserve this exercise only for the church?

I think you might try getting a life. Try living the gospel instead of spending your time looking for ways to tear it down.  I think you will find more happiness that way.

President Clark was trying to tell people that chastity is important. Also explaining the truth (taught often in the scriptures) that some things are worse than death.  Physical death is temporary, spiritual death caused by unrepentant sin is permanent.

I get that you are scandalized by President Clark's analogies and examples, but they were for his time and society, today we use different examples and analogies when we teach.  

Try to follow the advice of Moroni and don't condemn him, or Mormon, or President clark for their imperfections, but give thanks that that God has let you know of their imperfections so you can be better than them

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Danzo

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It seems you like to use the past church sayings to discredit the current church a lot. How many youth are reading these obscure quotes that you are trying to protect them from anyways? Do you spend your time looking over obscure things taught at schools in the thirties to smear current schools?  Do you look at political speeches in the thirties to discredit America today?

Or do you reserve this exercise only for the church?

I think you might try getting a life. Try living the gospel instead of spending your time looking for ways to tear it down.  I think you will find more happiness that way.

President Clark was trying to tell people that chastity is important. Also explaining the truth (taught often in the scriptures) that some things are worse than death.  Physical death is temporary, spiritual death caused by unrepentant sin is permanent.

I get that you are scandalized by President Clark's analogies and examples, but they were for his time and society, today we use different examples and analogies when we teach.  

Try to follow the advice of Moroni and don't condemn him, or Mormon, or President clark for their imperfections, but give thanks that that God has let you know of their imperfections so you can be better than them

 

All well and good, except for the fact that past leaders are often quoted in manuals and talks. 

Did you miss that I share that the church is proactive in things like suicide prevention and did you miss where I mention that leaders today, mention forgiveness constantly in General Conference, when they talk about breaking a commandment? 

I just wonder if we need to put disclosures for certain lessons etc. Maybe they do and I'm not a YW's leader to know.

I stumbled across some of these by accident. For instance, I remembered watching the movie, God's Army 2, where the missionary made a mistake and lost his virtue on his mission. His father said in the movie that he'd rather him be brought back in a casket verses having lost that. I think the director or producer probably had Pres. Clark's talk in mind. 

So I wasn't looking up all kinds of things. Just put the words from the movie. And how significant that they show the baby Jesus in the manger at the end of the movie to remind that there is forgiveness before the thought should ever cross one's mind that they don't deserve to live if they break the law of chastity.

 

 

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I give individual youth lots of credit.  As a longtime teacher and parent and once upon a time youth, I also know I can't always tell those who will get the nuances from those who don't.

We know that currently errors are being made by teachers.  People are still reporting they are being taught the nail in the board analogy, the crushed cupcake or flower or chewed gum.  We are also being told still by teens and youth things that show that they don't properly understand the Atonement.  

So while there may be some and even many that we don't need to worry about, that doesn't remove those who we should be worrying about. 

We should always try and improve our teaching. I 100% agree with you there.

We always need to remember that as long as the church uses human beings as teachers, the teaching will be flawed.

Even Moroni was concerned about it. There may even be some of us who do a worse job than he did.😞

The other thing to remember is it is the spirit that teaches. Always!

When the spirit is there, the truth will come through, even when the messenger is flawed, even when we use an example that terrible.

I have often experienced this. The spirit has taught even when I barely knew the language and it couldn't have been the words I was speaking.

I have even been taught things in church by the spirit when I knew the teacher was making factual errors in the presentation.

That is how someone can be taught using these bad analogies and still come away undamaged by them, as is most often the case.  

[Eek!]

 

42 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

... in my own heart and mind I'm certain Mormon perfectly understood that a chaste and virtuous rape victim continues to be chaste and virtuous in the eyes of God and in the eyes of godly people. 

 I too would like to THINK that's what Mormon THOUGHT.  But it is clearly NOT what he SAID.   

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

All well and good, except for the fact that past leaders are often quoted in manuals and talks. 

Did you miss that I share that the church is proactive in things like suicide prevention and did you miss where I mention that leaders today, mention forgiveness constantly in General Conference, when they talk about breaking a commandment? 

I just wonder if we need to put disclosures for certain lessons etc. Maybe they do and I'm not a YW's leader to know.

I stumbled across some of these by accident. For instance, I remembered watching the movie, God's Army 2, where the missionary made a mistake and lost his virtue on his mission. His father said in the movie that he'd rather him be brought back in a casket verses having lost that. I think the director or producer probably had Pres. Clark's talk in mind. 

So I wasn't looking up all kinds of things. Just put the words from the movie. And how significant that they show the baby Jesus in the manger at the end of the movie to remind that there is forgiveness before the thought should ever cross one's mind that they don't deserve to live if they break the law of chastity.

 

 

Yet in your example, this wasn't quoted in a talk or a manual but a movie (that I have never seen and didn't know existed until your post).  You critical posts would be more helpful if they focused on ways the current teachings could be improved, not on how teachings of people long dead could be improved.

As for teachers teaching badly, there may not be much we can do as long as we have have a volunteer force teaching.  I certainly have given lessons that could have been done better.

 

 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Danzo

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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

Virtue/power can be taken from the innocent and pure. It was received by the faithful woman with an issue of blood, who touched Christ's hem, but virtue/agency/power was viciously stolen from women by rapists in Mormon's account.

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? I do think that doing so chips away at that, at minimum, because, how can they be victims if they lost nothing? They lost agency, among other things, albeit still chaste. Virtue was taken from them.

I would posit that Mormon's account may be among the most femininist passages in the BOM. We're talking about what seems a highly patriarchal culture acknowledging the supreme importance of a woman's agency...If my hypothesis about this use of "virtue" is correct.

There was a YW video that define Virtue as Strength.  I will see if I can find it before lights out.  I see think there can definitely be a case made for Virtue as Strength...but then it would cause a lot less confusion if we just called it that.  For the Strength of the Youth/For the Virtue of the Youth...Strength is much more expansive and active.

[Rivers]

34 minutes ago, Eek! said:

 

 I too would like to THINK that's what Mormon THOUGHT.  But it is clearly NOT what he SAID.   

I'm sure Mormon is wishing he could come down and correct his words right now.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I'm sure Mormon is wishing he could come down and correct his words right now.

Nah, he is just kicking Joseph for not listening closer.

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I'm sure Mormon is wishing he could come down and correct his words right now.

Yeah, they didn't even have erasers back then, much less the ability to go back and edit their posts.  I always do my best proofreading after I hit "Submit".  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

We should always try and improve our teaching. I 100% agree with you there.

We always need to remember that as long as the church uses human beings as teachers, the teaching will be flawed.

Even Moroni was concerned about it. There may even be some of us who do a worse job than he did.😞

The other thing to remember is it is the spirit that teaches. Always!

When the spirit is there, the truth will come through, even when the messenger is flawed, even when we use an example that terrible.

I have often experienced this. The spirit has taught even when I barely knew the language and it couldn't have been the words I was speaking.

I have even been taught things in church by the spirit when I knew the teacher was making factual errors in the presentation.

That is how someone can be taught using these bad analogies and still come away undamaged by them, as is most often the case.  

A teacher teaching with the Spirit will reach the students listening with the Spirit.  But what about those who aren't, who may not have the spirit due to extreme anxiety or depression, the very ones that most need to not fall into the trap of not understanding the Atonement.

And what about the students of the teachers who don't teach with the Spirit?  Doesn't it make sense to make the manuals Spiritlessproof to the best of our abilities?

It is even better to avoid teaching false doctrine if it is taken out of the manual.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Got to sign off, 'early to bed'

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I'm sure Mormon is wishing he could come down and correct his words right now.

Reality is he is not in the least to blame even if he did say something stupid (which I don't think he did, all would depend on what was actually meant by him for "chastity and virtue"; it is our choice to use his words in a sloppy way because it is convenient or in a way that they can enlarge a person's life and inform their choices with the Spirit...but not by pretending they are something they are not.

Night all.

[Tacenda]

On 9/2/2016 at 8:21 AM, stemelbow said:

I fear we continue to have a terrible view of women in the Church and thus a harmful way of teaching girls as they grow.  I don't mean to say it's all bad or bleak.  We have a Church that teaches girls from very early on, their place.  I dont' like the idea of putting limits or restrictions on anyone.  Dont' get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no opportunity for girls or women in the Church.  And I do agree there is plenty in how the Church views women and girls that is ok and good.  But ti's not perfect and we're not a perfect society. 

Elizabeth Smart recently did an interview wherein she discusses one way in which girls have been taught poorly. 

Says the piece:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/elizabeth-smart-is-standing-up-for-rape-victimsand-tearing-down-purity-culture

Having been a boy in the church I didn't see these analogies.  I guess I slept through them. But as I got older I learned girls were be told these things and many didn't like it, nor appreciate. 

Sometimes we're not a very thoughtful bunch.  I worry about my young daughters having to go through some of the teaching in the Church.  My oldest boy is 17 and he's been through the ringer with some lessons, but I think it'll be much more difficult for my daughters.  Anyway, does anyone see value in the types of messages Elizabeth got?  I don't. 

http://www.ldsliving.com/Elizabeth-Smart-Shares-How-Chastity-Lessons-in-Our-Culture-Can-Have-Harmful-Lasting-Effects/s/83107 There's this one too.

[bcuzbcuz]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

From the same talk.  Oh, this is so scary. 

President Clark, in a conference address in October 1938, said: “Chastity is fundamental to our life and to our civilization. If the race becomes unchaste, it will perish. Immorality has been basic to the destruction of mighty nations of the past; it will bring to dust the mighty nations of the present. …

“You young people—May I directly entreat you to be chaste. Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–38.)

I'm happy that you have access and that you post from such conference speeches. They are so much more informative than the endless blathering by some who try to justify such filthy and confusing interpretations of doctrine. 

To say to a son or daughter: "Better die chaste than live unchaste." "We'd rather take you home in a casket than have you come home unclean"

And to say such things out loud, like there was some kind of kind of pride in saying such blithering idiocy? 

Such nonsense is on the level of what I heard in a meeting from a mother saying to her overactive young son, "If you don't sit still, I'll rip off your arm and hit you with the wet end." How about, "If you don't stop hitting your sister, I'll beat you with a stick".

Would it be appropriate for a man to say to his wife, "If you're ever unfaithful to me, I'll kill you."? Certainly, the Old Testament would confirm such behaviour.

Is the idea to state something so outrageously frightening to a son or daughter, that they, in fear that you actually mean what you're saying, will choose chastity? Sort of like, If a person can't choose chastity for the right reasons, then scare the crap out of them with a terrifying alternative?