Girls raised in the Church

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I wish I could say the same.  They were taught in my youth and they were taught to my teenagers. Many harmful things have been said to my kids from leaders.  Maybe we need a strongly worded official letter about ways NOT to teach about chastity.  But, we can't even get Moroni 9:9 out of the Personal Progress book in the virtue section and it is still being used in Come Follow Me to teach the virtue and chastity lesson. 

Why don't you start by telling us how the law of chastity should be taught.

Give us a positive example of a lesson on the law of chastity.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Where are these people's brains?

In Utah.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why don't you start by telling us how the law of chastity should be taught.

Give us a positive example of a lesson on the law of chastity.

There was a blog post on Facebook that talked about a good way to teach the law of Chastity.   Instead of focusing on the "don't do it!" part it focuses on the "why" part, and it goes beyond the simple answer of obedience.  It focuses on why God wants us to be obedient.

Understanding Why: The Chastity talk you wish you were having  It's by Alaina Chatterley

 

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why don't you start by telling us how the law of chastity should be taught.

Give us a positive example of a lesson on the law of chastity.

First of all you tell young women they are NOT a pastry.  Then you tell young men that should their hormones get the best of them..it is also their responsibility and not just the young lady.  You tell a daughter of God that she is always special but she is not responsible for the actions of a priesthood holder..and then at the end of any lesson..you tell her that if she is being hurt, or has questionable actions against her person, she goes to her parents and with them head straight to a police station...and then..if she feels that she wants just good church advice...she goes to her bishop.  You let young people know that mistakes are forgiveable and that they are not trash to be discarded and that they through the process of repentance are clean...there are no holes left with nails used to be; and pastries???  They are to be enjoyed and not used as a poor example of a sin next to murder!

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

First of all you tell young women they are NOT a pastry.  Then you tell young men that should their hormones get the best of them..it is also their responsibility and not just the young lady.  You tell a daughter of God that she is always special but she is not responsible for the actions of a priesthood holder..and then at the end of any lesson..you tell her that if she is being hurt, or has questionable actions against her person, she goes to her parents and with them head straight to a police station...and then..if she feels that she wants just good church advice...she goes to her bishop.  You let young people know that mistakes are forgiveable and that they are not trash to be discarded and that they through the process of repentance are clean...there are no holes left with nails used to be; and pastries???  They are to be enjoyed and not used as a poor example of a sin next to murder!

Your  lesson on law of chastity

 

1.  Girls are not pastries

2.  Girls are always special

3.  Girls should tell some one if they are hurt.

4.  Girls are not responsible for priesthoold holders

5.  Mistakes are forgivable

6. Young people are not trash

7. Young people are to be enjoyed.

 

I fail to see the actual law of chastity mentioned in your lesson plan. 

 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Danzo said:

Your  lesson on law of chastity

 

1.  Girls are not pastries

2.  Girls are always special

3.  Girls should tell some one if they are hurt.

4.  Girls are not responsible for priesthoold holders

5.  Mistakes are forgivable

6. Young people are not trash

7. Young people are to be enjoyed.

 

I fail to see the actual law of chastity mentioned in your lesson plan. 

 

Doesn't matter.  I feel so much better now that I ranted that out.  Besides...that is about all I ever learned on chastity. 

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Doesn't matter.  I feel so much better now that I ranted that out.  Besides...that is about all I ever learned on chastity. 

 

I see where you stand, it would appear that chastity is not that important to you after all.

Its so easy to criticize.

coming up with constructive solutions takes a little more effort.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Danzo
clarity

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There was a blog post on Facebook that talked about a good way to teach the law of Chastity.   Instead of focusing on the "don't do it!" part it focuses on the "why" part, and it goes beyond the simple answer of obedience.  It focuses on why God wants us to be obedient.

Understanding Why: The Chastity talk you wish you were having  It's by Alaina Chatterley

 

Thanks, I think this is a good example.

[cinepro]

It would be interesting to see this quote from Brother Holland, who is now an apostle but was only a university president when he said it, receive more distribution among the church members:

 

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."

To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.

Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea.

http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It would be interesting to see this quote from Brother Holland, who is now an apostle but was only a university president when he said it, receive more distribution among the church members:

 

 

 

I got this quite a lot growing up in the church. (not sure if it was this precise quote, but the idea, in my recollection, was extensively taught in my neck of the woods)

[bsjkki]

Like I already said, make sure you always end with the atonement.  End with a strong message that whatever you have done or whatever has been done to you, the atonement can bring about healing and make you whole.  Make sure to not teach that if you violate the law of chastity you are forever tarnished or ruined.  Do not give horrible object lessons and do not teach that you are forever ruined/blemished if you have lost your virginity.  Teach the law of chastity in a matter of fact manner and that it is a gift from God to protect us from heartache and harm and is for our good.  Make sure you emphasize God cares where we are going and not where we have been and that he will always love us.  Always assume you have a rape victim or someone who is struggling to overcome past choices in the room.  Also, always assume you have innocent babies that barely know what sex is.  Have your class repeat back to you their understanding of what has been taught.  This is a very fine needle to thread and must be done with great care. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, 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. 

I have no idea of what you speak. Unless you take issue with Young Women being taught of self respect and self worth?  In addition unlike most Churches (Especially Evangelical Churches) who require Women (young or old) to remain silent in Church, and who give them no leadership roles. I don't question any of Sister Smart's words or take offense of Sister Smart's actions, who can say what horror she (well we do know that) endured or how it affected her. On the other hand, our young women starting at the age of 12, begin with their first leadership roles, and speaking assignment in Church soon thereafter. Also these speaking assignments and leadership callings and continue for the remainer of their lives. But for the Young Women, it prepares them to pursue College, and jobs in the workforce that used to be available only men. It also,prepares them for their greatest calling, that of Motherhood. It seems as of late, that anything (good or bad) is a topic to attack the Church. I have two daughters who sought higher education before marriage..go figure? 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

 weak children of stupidity 

Your words, not mine. I was implying, perhaps poorly, that a woman's point of view would be different to a man's.

When I showed this OP to my wife (and asked for a comment) her response was, "No, nothing I could say would change a man's point of view. It's a waste of time."

You're saying that the expressions of "used gum", "licked cupcakes", "nails removed from a plank" is not church policy (Prove whenever the church officially said the above...?) but merely individual members stating their imperfect opinions.

I'm saying that an active policy that decries such statements and declares them lacking in charity is a necessary statement by the church. Simply sitting on the sidelines and saying nothing is not sufficient. 

Individual members spouting incorrect doctrine or policy should be corrected. Anything less is acknowledging the opposite.

 

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Like I already said, make sure you always end with the atonement.  End with a strong message that whatever you have done or whatever has been done to you, the atonement can bring about healing and make you whole.  Make sure to not teach that if you violate the law of chastity you are forever tarnished or ruined.  Do not give horrible object lessons and do not teach that you are forever ruined/blemished if you have lost your virginity.  Teach the law of chastity in a matter of fact manner and that it is a gift from God to protect us from heartache and harm and is for our good.  Make sure you emphasize God cares where we are going and not where we have been and that he will always love us.  Always assume you have a rape victim or someone who is struggling to overcome past choices in the room.  Also, always assume you have innocent babies that barely know what sex is.  Have your class repeat back to you their understanding of what has been taught.  This is a very fine needle to thread and must be done with great care. 

I think the (justified) worry is that youth will think they can eat, drink and be merry and then repent. 

And if you teach them that they can fornicate, repent and then be 100% as-good-as-new after repenting, that's true from a spiritual standpoint, but it ignores the very real emotional (and possibly physical) consequences that won't go away.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

First, and foremost, there is a world of difference between a young couple that chooses to have sex together when they are 14 years of age simply because they think it might feel good and two individuals where one forces the other to have sex.  There is no comparison between the two situations.  

 

This is completely true.  But you would probably be surprised at how little this truth sinks in to the hearts and minds of girls who have been raped or molested.  Satan is really good at helping such girls forget the truth of it, while constantly bringing to mind the harsher things (or things that can be interpreted in a harsh way by young, immature, injured minds) they were taught.  

One of the reasons that Elizabeth Smart didn't speak up the many times she was in public (and it was many many times, both in Utah and in California) is because she struggled with believing her family wanted her anymore because she was no longer pure.  The first thing she thought of after she was raped was how she wasn't worthy anymore.  No one had taught her that, but that's where satan helped her mind take her.  And she's a smart as they come and she was very well versed in the gospel before her ordeal.  Neither was she from a family of zealots that had taught her to think this way by constantly harping on sex and judgement.  She was a normal run of the mill girl from a good solid LDS family and it didn't matter.

So, while the statement is true, i don't think that it's "first and foremost."  Satan will do everything he can to compare the two situations in the minds of girls who have been raped so we must have something in our arsenal to fight against him with better than this statement of fact.  

I don't know exactly what it should be but i think the thoughts and experiences of women like Elizabeth Smart are a good place to start looking.

[Jeanne]

i

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the (justified) worry is that youth will think they can eat, drink and be merry and then repent. 

And if you teach them that they can fornicate, repent and then be 100% as-good-as-new after repenting, that's true from a spiritual standpoint, but it ignores the very real emotional (and possibly physical) consequences that won't go away.

One can still teach the basic principles of chastity.  Just get rid of the object lessons and let priesthood men know that they share responsibilities of those consequences.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the (justified) worry is that youth will think they can eat, drink and be merry and then repent. 

And if you teach them that they can fornicate, repent and then be 100% as-good-as-new after repenting, that's true from a spiritual standpoint, but it ignores the very real emotional (and possibly physical) consequences that won't go away.

I think she covered that with the gift of God to protect them from heartache and harm.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the (justified) worry is that youth will think they can eat, drink and be merry and then repent. 

And if you teach them that they can fornicate, repent and then be 100% as-good-as-new after repenting, that's true from a spiritual standpoint, but it ignores the very real emotional (and possibly physical) consequences that won't go away.

I was going to mention this earlier and forgot, but i think you are right.  I think that's why adults always seem to fall to the justice side of teaching about chastity.  There are some consequences of premarital sex that the Atonement does not erase (sexual transmitted diseases, for example) and it's a serious sin that is difficult to repent of and can emotionally really mess people up.

My three year old just discovered the movie The Croods on on-demand and we have watched it five times in two days (back to back, i now have it memorized  ) and sometimes i think that the LDS approach to teaching chastity lessons is similar to Grug's way of keeping his family safe--constantly tell stories about people not following the rules and how it always lead to their deaths.  I can certainly understand where he's coming from, but it didn't work well for his family and i don't think that kind of approach works well for our youth either.   

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think the (justified) worry is that youth will think they can eat, drink and be merry and then repent. 

And if you teach them that they can fornicate, repent and then be 100% as-good-as-new after repenting, that's true from a spiritual standpoint, but it ignores the very real emotional (and possibly physical) consequences that won't go away.

This is why it is such a fine needle to thread.  After my experiences, I now choose to come down on the side of offering hope and the enabling power of the atonement and power of god's love to heal and change hearts instead of fear and scare tactics.  I love the law of chastity.  It needs to be taught. If followed so many of the ills in this world would not exist.  It is possible to teach the doctrine of Gospel of Jesus Christ from a positive, enabling way.  If taught correctly, hopefully your class would feel the truth of what is being taught through the Holy Ghost. Those who are trying to justify their sins, will do so no matter what you teach. I like the Holland quote because I agree with this statement, "Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea."   I'm not a man so maybe the boys need to hear the hard message he sent to the young men. 

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I wish I could say the same.  They were taught in my youth and they were taught to my teenagers. Many harmful things have been said to my kids from leaders.  Maybe we need a strongly worded official letter about ways NOT to teach about chastity.  But, we can't even get Moroni 9:9 out of the Personal Progress book in the virtue section and it is still being used in Come Follow Me to teach the virtue and chastity lesson. 

We shouldn't take Moroni 9:9 out of anything. Instead of watering down the gospel truths in an effort to not hurt anyone, we should emphasize more the atoning sacrifice and perfectness of God's plan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching that keeping oneself pure is important, teaching that being pure and being a virgin is of great worth (perhaps more than some of us would like to believe if we want to take away from scriptural truths). Along side with those teachings we should also teach that there is a perfect, infinite and eternal atonement, that, "with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) There will always be a way to fix any wrongs. There is no need to dwell on already past mistakes, choices, or wrongs brought upon us by others, and these things can always be made right. There is no reason to pin our self worth on the negatives, but at the same time we shouldn't be trying to cushion those negatives in saying they aren't as bad is it is made out to be in scripture. The gospel is about fixing these things in spite of misdeeds, not solely on prevention. Prevention is always best, but it isn't always realistic. There would be no need of the gospel if everything could be prevented.

As far as the OP I think girls, and boys for that matter, have a huge advantage being raised within the church. Despite all the human error in teachers, in this lay ministry, we are taught the basics that will guide us through the mists of darkness. The iron rod is the word of God, and if we hold on to that we won't go wrong even if we are taught wrongly from a teacher. We need to realize that the word of God isn't the scriptures, only that the word of God is found within the scriptures ("20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21). The word of God is literally the Holy Ghost as he speaks to us. If we teach our kids how to receive the Holy Ghost, learn to hear His voice, and obey that voice, we would have no need to worry about an ill conceived idea being taught. The Holy Ghost will give each person who is in tune with Him the proper discernment to know that when a teacher teaches an ill conceived idea it isn't going to have much bearing, as opposed to a person who is taught to just blindly follow everything that is said in church, as gospel truth. We are taught to pray about everything to find our own testimony of what we are taught in church. We are also taught that we need to do most of the teaching in our own homes, not rely upon the church to do all the teaching for us. Just my two cents worth anyway

[SteveO]

I think part of the problem is that as a whole, the membership of the church still does a pretty horrible job of sex education.  It's still a taboo subject that isn't adequately addressed by parents and leaves kids having to figure it out on their own.  I mean, some of the things I've heard people at BYU say...they clearly still have no idea.

The only "sex talk" I got from my dad on the subject was, nearly word for word:

"Steve, your mother says you're having questions about...you know...sex.  I just want you to know that it's only okay if you're married.  Any other time is bad, okay?"

And that was it.  It would've spared me so much confusion and misunderstood shame going through puberty if I only knew just what was happening!  

I have to think my parents weren't the only ones who had that mindset.  I don't think the problem is really the object lessons (even though they are dumb) per se, but rather a failure on the part of parents to sit down and have a mature conversation with young ones coming of age.  

Edit to add:. See bluebell's "Croods" explanation above

Edited September 2, 2016 by SteveO

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, waveslider said:

We shouldn't take Moroni 9:9 out of anything. Instead of watering down the gospel truths in an effort to not hurt anyone, we should emphasize more the atoning sacrifice and perfectness of God's plan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching that keeping oneself pure is important, teaching that being pure and being a virgin is of great worth (perhaps more than some of us would like to believe if we want to take away from scriptural truths). Along side with those teachings we should also teach that there is a perfect, infinite and eternal atonement, that, "with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) There will always be a way to fix any wrongs. There is no need to dwell on already past mistakes, choices, or wrongs brought upon us by others, and these things can always be made right. There is no reason to pin our self worth on the negatives, but at the same time we shouldn't be trying to cushion those negatives in saying they aren't as bad is it is made out to be in scripture. The gospel is about fixing these things in spite of misdeeds, not solely on prevention. Prevention is always best, but it isn't always realistic. There would be no need of the gospel if everything could be prevented.

 

Here is the problem with Moroni 9:9 when taught to girls. https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/06/dear-church-leaders-fix-this-now/  If used to explain to young women their virtue can not be forcibly taken through rape--it might work if the nuances are explained. (Are these nuances being explained when it is used?)  For young men, use away to explain how abhorrent being a rapist and cannibal is to God.

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Here is the problem with Moroni 9:9 when taught to girls. https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/05/06/dear-church-leaders-fix-this-now/  If used to explain to young women their virtue can not be forcibly taken through rape--it might work if the nuances are explained. (Are these nuances being explained when it is used?)  For young men, use away to explain how abhorrent being a rapist and cannibal is to God.

This is the part that should be emphasized, not the raping. This scripture illustrates just how bad rape really is, not how bad the daughters were:

"that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—"
Moroni 9:9

Don't forget I also said this:

24 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Along side with those teachings we should also teach that there is a perfect, infinite and eternal atonement, that, "with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) There will always be a way to fix any wrongs. There is no need to dwell on already past mistakes, choices, or wrongs brought upon us by others, and these things can always be made right. There is no reason to pin our self worth on the negatives, but at the same time we shouldn't be trying to cushion those negatives in saying they aren't as bad is it is made out to be in scripture. The gospel is about fixing these things in spite of misdeeds, not solely on prevention. Prevention is always best, but it isn't always realistic. There would be no need of the gospel if everything could be prevented.

I also said this

27 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Despite all the human error in teachers, in this lay ministry, we are taught the basics that will guide us through the mists of darkness. The iron rod is the word of God, and if we hold on to that we won't go wrong even if we are taught wrongly from a teacher. We need to realize that the word of God isn't the scriptures, only that the word of God is found within the scriptures ("20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21). The word of God is literally the Holy Ghost as he speaks to us. If we teach our kids how to receive the Holy Ghost, learn to hear His voice, and obey that voice, we would have no need to worry about an ill conceived idea being taught. The Holy Ghost will give each person who is in tune with Him the proper discernment to know that when a teacher teaches an ill conceived idea it isn't going to have much bearing, as opposed to a person who is taught to just blindly follow everything that is said in church, as gospel truth. We are taught to pray about everything to find our own testimony of what we are taught in church. We are also taught that we need to do most of the teaching in our own homes, not rely upon the church to do all the teaching for us. Just my two cents worth anyway

The ill conceived idea meaning the chewing gum analogy, or the licking of baked goodies, not scriptures. The Holy Ghost will help us to understand scriptures and what is meant by them.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think we focus too much on justice and not enough on mercy and when we are unsure of how God would handle something-if it's a gray area without a lot of teachings behind it-we fall on the justice side and teach that.  I have a friend who's dealing with some family issues and her bishop is awesome and speaks frequently about how it's usually much better to err on the side of mercy.  Even in really serious matters like sexual sin, he still believes that erring on the side of mercy is for the best.

When I stand before God after this life, I want to have more Mercy, and care more for mercy that I do for judgement. Thanks to the Atoement I will not be disappointment. BTW, and young man who might reject a girl for having not been chase and forgiven, will find themselves not being forgiven. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Pa Pa

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I think you know what I meant..so this isn't even funny.  After they have been passed around a seminary class..they are hard to take.

No, Jeanne.  I did not and do not know what you meant.  I have never heard of any analogy about a twinke or a cupcake.  

Just a hint - the world does not end at the Utah border.  Never expect that because I am LDS I understand or know Utah Mormon culture.  It has nothing in common with me, my family, my church, my ward family or my existence.