Girls raised in the Church

[bluebell]

Just now, waveslider said:

I'll refer you to the reply I made to bsjkki, three posts below where you quoted me from, in your post I am quoting you from here. Please go back and read it before replying back with me here.

 

Are you referring to your post that I quoted when i replied to you?  If that's the one, then i've already read it.  I don't see that you've addressed my question in it, which is why i asked.

[Danzo]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Oh bunk.  These things were common enough that they could easily have been corrected by leadership.  Indeed in more recent years to the credit of the church they have been.  

Which is what is to be expected.  Errors are corrected, doctrine is revealed. The church improves line upon line . . .

This is a living church, not a dead one.   

If everything started out perfect, there would be no need for revelation.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Which is what is to be expected.  Errors are corrected, doctrine is revealed. The church improves line upon line . . .

This is a living church, not a dead one.   

If everything started out perfect, there would be no need for revelation.

Except that principle is misapplied by people of every viewpoint and frequently taken into incorrect doctrinal beliefs.

Edited September 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

No, Moroni 9 teaches that INNOCENT women were robbed of their God-given right to offer themselves exclusively to their husbands by men of desperate wickedness. 

I agree that it's probably teaching that but that's not what it says.   

"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"

But it says that the women lost their virtue and their chastity thru rape, and that's why it's probably not a great scripture to read to someone who also has been (or who might have been and you are unaware) raped.

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree with your interpretation, but I think that a girl who had been raped might struggle to find that meaning when it specifically says that she has lost her virtue and her chastity.

Unfortunately someone who has been raped will be struggling with many things and is likely to interpret even most benign teachings badly.

We need to treat victims very gently and carefully and allow them to heal.

To give an analogy, at the scene of the car accident is not the time or place lecture the injured about driving safely.

That doesn't mean we stop teaching driver safety at other appropriate times and places. 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Danzo

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you referring to your post that I quoted when i replied to you?  If that's the one, then i've already read it.  I don't see that you've addressed my question in it, which is why i asked.

No I'm referring to the post three posts down from that one.

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except that principle is misapplied by people of every viewpoint and frequently taken into incorrect doctrinal beliefs.

do you think that it is misapplied in this instance?

[bluebell]

Just now, Danzo said:

That doesn't mean we stop teach driver safety at other appropriate times and places. 

Agreed.  I can't find any posts in this thread where someone is advocating that we don't teach chastity so it seems like a moot point.  The great thing for everyone though is that since it's very possible to be gentle and careful in our teachings of Chastity while still being true to the doctrine, doing better by our youth on this topic should be pretty easy.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.  I can't find any posts in this thread where someone is advocating that we don't teach chastity so it seems like a moot point.  The great thing for everyone though is that since it's very possible to be gentle and careful in our teachings of Chastity while still being true to the doctrine, doing better by our youth on this topic should be pretty easy.

It seems to me that some that complain here don't want it taught at all.  That is, at least how I interpret Jeanne's Posts. Teancum's as well.

Perhaps they can correct me if I misinterpret.

I agree that can always improve the way we teach people the law of Chastity, as long as we are still teaching it.

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by Danzo

[bluebell]

Just now, Danzo said:

It seems to me that some that complain here don't want it taught at all.  That is, at least how I interpret Jeanne's Posts. 

I think Jeanne specifically said that that's not what she meant so i'm not sure why you would interpret her words that way.  Maybe i'm not remembering her post correctly though.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

do you think that it is misapplied in this instance?

I think this entire thread is mixing and conflating member opinion and official teaching.
I think further light and knowledge and continuing revelation to the Church has very little application to this topic.

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I think this entire thread is mixing and conflating member opinion and official teaching.

Lessons on chastity are a mixture of member opinion and official teachings so it's logical that a thread talking about Chastity lessons also must mix the two to be relevant to real life situations.

[Danzo]

.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Danzo

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think this entire thread is mixing and conflating member opinion and official teaching.
I think further light and knowledge and continuing revelation to the Church has very little application to this topic.

You don't think the church is entitled to further light and knowledge in the way it teach about its doctrine?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Lessons on chastity are a mixture of member opinion and official teachings so it's logical that a thread talking about Chastity lessons also must mix the two to be relevant to real life situations.

Agreed.

Should just stick to the scriptures and the temple chastity covenant.
Nothing else can reasonably be presumed to be from God.

Unfortunately, we are now in the habit of dismissing the temple as changeable and the scriptures as societal and cultural relics.
So perhaps naming all aspects of the gospel as opinion is the only route some members are willing to take.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

You don't think the church is entitled to further light and knowledge in the way it teach about its doctrine?

Of course I do.  But the president of our entire dispensation was very clear that any future revelation contradicting the restoring revelation should be dismissed as false.

So bring on the further light and knowledge on doctrine.  Just don't try changing prior revelation with new revelation and tell me that both were from God.

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course I do.  But the president of our entire dispensation was very clear that any future revelation contradicting the restoring revelation should be dismissed as false.

So bring on the further light and knowledge on doctrine.  Just don't try changing prior revelation with new revelation and tell me that both were from God.

Why would we need Line upon line, if everything was revealed immediately.

Doesn't the lord reveal things according to the needs and circumstances of his people?

If this generation needs to be taught things differently than the last, wouldn't  inspiration from him be useful? aren't we entitled to it?

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why would we need Line upon line, if everything was revealed immediately.

Doesn't the lord reveal things according to the needs and circumstances of his people?

If this generation needs to be taught things differently than the last, wouldn't  inspiration from him be useful? aren't we entitled to it?

Again, you are speaking of NEW information, FURTHER light.
Not a change to previously revealed truths.
We need line upon line to gain this further light and instruction.  Expecting or asking for revelation that will contradict a prior revelation is a fools errand.
Just ask Joseph about the 116 pages.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, you are speaking of NEW information, FURTHER light.
Not a change to previously revealed truths.
We need line upon line to gain this further light and instruction.  Expecting or asking for revelation that will contradict a prior revelation is a fools errand.
Just ask Joseph about the 116 pages.

I think we are talking about teaching the law of chastity. The law hasn't changed, how we teach it can change based on the needs of the students.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think we are talking about teaching the law of chastity. The law hasn't changed, how we teach it can change based on the needs of the students.

Actually, the law of chastity today as administered in the temple HAS changed from the originally revealed form.
We are no longer under the same covenant of chastity as our great grandparents would have been.

And as this thread proves, there are many members that want a further change to the law to allow things they disagree with the Church concerning.

Edited September 3, 2016 by JLHPROF

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I don't advocate ever steadying the ark and calling for the removal or disavowal of anything in modern scripture --- especially the Book of Mormon.

I take Moroni 9:9 to teach and emphasize how serious the atrocities committed were --- not that the women who were forced had lost their virtue. Notwithstanding the language of "depriving them of their chastity and virtue." The atrocities were so serious precisely because of how sacred virtue and chastity in this context is (i.e., a woman's right and birthright not to be subjected to this). Not that this depravity made them unvirtuous. And I don't know of anyone who would use this to teach this, in this decade or in any other one. 

It doesn't need to be removed or disavowed from the Book of Mormon just removed from lesson plans and the Personal Progress program.  A young girl is going to read what is said and believe what it says.  This is the problem.  A note could be added into the lesson plans to explain that in this instance "virtue" is used as a euphemism for virginity.  Virtue and virginity are not the same thing. I think this whole thread is a very telling example of some seeing a problem (based on personal experiences and based on Elizabeth Smart's experiences) and some claiming there is no problem.  I don't see anyone stating teaching the law of chastity is not important but that instead, the how we teach it can be improved to limit misunderstandings.  The lessons in the past have been misinterpreted.  Moroni 9:9 is stated to be not a problem as long as we don't read the whole verse and we don't actually believe the words as stated.  As waverider says: 

 

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

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

So do you believe in the Virtue section of personal progress, the young women should be sent to read this scripture on "how bad rape really is?"    Does this help them answer the question, "In your journal write the promised blessings of being sexually clean and pure and you commitment to be chaste?"  Are they supposed to answer, "don't get raped."  It states they were deprived of their chastity and virtue through rape.  It is what it says.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually, the law of chastity today as administered in the temple HAS changed from the originally revealed form.
We are no longer under the same covenant of chastity as our great grandparents would have been.

And as this thread proves, there are many members that want a further change to the law to allow things they disagree with the Church concerning.

You mean we used to be able to have sex outside of marriage?

[Duncan]

Without getting into it but as someone who was molested twice in life, once by a member of the Church in authority kinda I can attest to this statement in Psalms 23:3

 

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of^arighteousness for his ^bname’s sake.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Duncan

[Rain]

10 hours 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

 

I actually didn't like that one.  Some of it I can't quite put my finger on it.  

Some of it had to do with the idea that the lesser things on the scale seeming less sweet  after sex, when I'm at the point that handholding is so much much more now than it ever was to me before sex.

Some of it is because she puts fireworks as sex, because sex just isn't fireworks all the time and often the first time it is far from fireworks. 

Some is because she talks of the emotions of the woman being greater and I don't believe if you have 2 people who love each other that is necessarily true.

 

4 hours ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately someone who has been raped will be struggling with many things and is likely to interpret even most benign teachings badly.

We need to treat victims very gently and carefully and allow them to heal.

To give an analogy, at the scene of the car accident is not the time or place lecture the injured about driving safely.

That doesn't mean we stop teaching driver safety at other appropriate times and places. 

 

Right. Which is precisely why having Moroni 9:9 taught in a lesson to YW on chastity is not a good idea.

------------

Personally I would like to do away with all analogies when talking about chastity. Those who teach about teaching kids about sexual predators say you should use correct body parts names and not euphemisms. That we should teach children to feel comfortable to use correct terminolgy so they can feel more comfortable reporting when abuse happens. 

I think we should do a similar thing with the law of chastity. Just teach it without the analagies. Don't be embarrassed about it. 

So teach...

- What it is

- What it is not (rape)

- Blessings of keeping it

- atonement

- Repentance 

- Consequences of not keeping the law with a differentiation between being made clean and consequences

-  that when someone is raped that like other sins such as murder and theft that some of the consequences fall on the victim, but also like the theft victim not being guilty of the sin of theft the rape victim is not guilty of breaking the law of chastity.

- How the atonement is both for sin and suffering that isn't from ones own sins and the peace that comes from it.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Rain

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think Jeanne specifically said that that's not what she meant so i'm not sure why you would interpret her words that way.  Maybe i'm not remembering her post correctly though.

You are right Bluebell. In fact there is a post where I stated that Chastity should be taught..just without an object lesson.