Licked Cupcake & Used Chewing Gum Poll

[Thinking]

In the Girls raised in the Church thread, Storm Rider wrote...

On 9/2/2016 at 8:36 AM, Storm Rider said:

I missed the brochure that the Church published on the chewing gum.  Could you please point it out to me.

I'm wondering if the members of this board remember being taught these object lessons.

[Rain]

I honestly don't remember. I think it may have been after my time, but couldn't tell you for sure.  

[waveslider]

I remember being told the nail in the board type of thing in my primary class once, and it never really made sense to me since I was also taught that if we truly repent that the Lord will remember our sins no more. This was many years before I even had a testimony too. Personally I don't like the chewing gum and cupcake thing since hearing about it here either.

[JAHS]

I don't remember being taught it by my Sunday School or seminary teachers but I do remember students using the idea when they would give a talk or report in seminary class on the subject. I don't know where they got it from; probably their parents.

The idea is completely contrary to the principle of repentance and forgiveness. If you are raped you are not responsible. If you break the law of chastity you can repent and  "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;" (Isaiah 1: 18). In other words gum no longer chewed and cupcake no longer licked.

Edited September 4, 2016 by JAHS

[BlueDreams]

No. I'm pretty sure I didn't. Like I mentioned, I don't remember most of my chastity lessons period, just the sentiment of awkwardness. They just weren't memorable really.

 

With luv,

BD 

[sunstoned]

I came of age in the 1970s.  This was the time that Spencer Kimball's tragic book, miracle of forgiveness was published.  This was one of the few books that were authorized for missionaries to have and to read. It was assigned reading from many Bishops, and it this was the book that spawned so many harsh Sunday School and MIA lessons about how loss of virtue could never fully be reclaimed, and how how sexual sin, the sin next to murder, and could never really fully be repented of.   It minimized the atonement.  I heard many lessons that were inspired by this book, including licked cupcakes and chewed gum.  

I did not grow up in Utah. I was in the mission field and not a month went by that we did not have some type of guilt ridden cup cake lesson shoved in our face. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by sunstoned

[Danzo]

Mostly heard about it from other kids, don't think it was used in lessons.

[Eek!]

I voted "other" because I don't remember those specific analogies, but do remember similar ones that had the same debilitating message. 

I also remember a priesthood lesson in the late 70's wherein the senior high priest present taught that a girl who had been raped needed to confess and repent, even though it was non-consensual, because she had still "committed the act".  I regret not standing up to him. 

[jcake]

I don't remember having any lessons like this in the Utah wards that I grew up attending.  Sad to hear of it now.

[rchorse]

I was taught the nail in the board analogy, but I was taught that repentance removes the nail and the Atonement fixes the hole, such that the board is as if it never had a nail in it. Taught that way, I don't see a problem. 

[Duncan]

I got the smashed cake analogy. I remember my friend and another guy doing this thing in front of all of us "yutes"

[bcuzbcuz]

I never heard either......BUT I'm male.

Guys aren't licked cupcakes or butterless bread, we're studs and players. To think that these classifications are "lessons in Sunday School" is naive and blue-eyed. These are phrases passed around by the teenage guys after Sunday services have been concluded.

I learned after getting married about what girls learned about being "used or spoiled goods", or being an "Eight cow wife"

 

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I never heard either......BUT I'm male.

Guys aren't licked cupcakes or butterless bread, we're studs and players. To think that these classifications are "lessons in Sunday School" is naive and blue-eyed. These are phrases passed around by the teenage guys after Sunday services have been concluded.

I learned after getting married about what girls learned about being "used or spoiled goods", or being an "Eight cow wife"

 

I also an male and don't remember having this lesson in church.  I remember being familiar with the concept, but I'm not sure where from.

I first learned about the eight cow wife concept from watching Johnny Lingo in the temple.

[bcuzbcuz]

41 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I also an male and don't remember having this lesson in church.  I remember being familiar with the concept, but I'm not sure where from.

I first learned about the eight cow wife concept from watching Johnny Lingo in the temple.

Johnny Lingo and his "eight cow wife" in the temple? My wife would have stood up and walked out. She hated that film. She saw it as men deciding the woman's worth.

[Gray]

I heard the chewing gum and nail in the board versions.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

I first learned about the eight cow wife concept from watching Johnny Lingo in the temple.

Ok, I enjoy Johnny Lingo (mostly as a dated curiosity at this point) but whoever thought that should be shown in a temple was seriously off their rocker.
(I assume in a waiting area, but still...)

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I enjoy Johnny Lingo (mostly as a dated curiosity at this point) but whoever thought that should be shown in a temple was seriously off their rocker.
(I assume in a waiting area, but still...)

I wish they would update that movie, this time "Johnny Lingo 2: Mahanna Goes to Paris" 

[Storm Rider]

Never heard the analogy and never heard the one about the board and nails.  

I find teaching with analogies, similes, and parables to be effective.  I expect that regardless of what we teach or how we teach it there will be someone that can be offended.  For example, the Johnny Lingo film.  For me it was always about how a person that others despised and ridiculed could be made into the most beautiful and noble person all through being valued and treated well.  Who knew that important message would be totally lost in favor of gender politics or any other thing.

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that hurt feelings and aggrandizing those with hurt feelings is a waste of time.  The world is about hurt feelings and learning to deal with it.  Having worked in the Middle East and North Africa I saw some things that our American citizens will never comprehend or imagine.  Their "hurt" feelings just don't mean that much to me.

Lastly, in a world that is as sex crazed, over-hyped sexuality, if it feels good do it, I have little respect or patience for those who are puppets of the sexual revolution.  Any attempt, however poorly, to teach the holiness and value of our bodies and the responsibility that comes with procreation should be promoted and upheld.  If it offends you to hear that you should not follow every passion your body demands then it is not the Church that has a problem, but it is you.  I don't think there is any need to go further.  For those with ears let them hear and for those that don't they will never hear and never listen.  

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Never heard the analogy and never heard the one about the board and nails.  

I find teaching with analogies, similes, and parables to be effective.  I expect that regardless of what we teach or how we teach it there will be someone that can be offended.  For example, the Johnny Lingo film.  For me it was always about how a person that others despised and ridiculed could be made into the most beautiful and noble person all through being valued and treated well.  Who knew that important message would be totally lost in favor of gender politics or any other thing.

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that hurt feelings and aggrandizing those with hurt feelings is a waste of time.  The world is about hurt feelings and learning to deal with it.  Having worked in the Middle East and North Africa I saw some things that our American citizens will never comprehend or imagine.  Their "hurt" feelings just don't mean that much to me.

Lastly, in a world that is as sex crazed, over-hyped sexuality, if it feels good do it, I have little respect or patience for those who are puppets of the sexual revolution.  Any attempt, however poorly, to teach the holiness and value of our bodies and the responsibility that comes with procreation should be promoted and upheld.  If it offends you to hear that you should not follow every passion your body demands then it is not the Church that has a problem, but it is you.  I don't think there is any need to go further.  For those with ears let them hear and for those that don't they will never hear and never listen.  

Since you haven't heard of the 2 examples in the poll,  the major problem is not with sex or hurt feelings. It is with incorrect teaching of repentance and the atonement. That despite fully repenting and the power of God you will never be clean/pure/whole again.  

[Storm Rider]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

Since you haven't heard of the 2 examples in the poll,  the major problem is not with sex or hurt feelings. It is with incorrect teaching of repentance and the atonement. That despite fully repenting and the power of God you will never be clean/pure/whole again.  

Correct teaching and proper understanding of the gospel in its fullness is paramount for this life; however, we learn line upon line and principle upon principle.  I suspect if we used this standard for perfect teachings of each principle exactly when do we hear any teaching in Sunday School or at any other time.  I strongly doubt we have anyone that has ever participated on this Board that has a perfect understanding of each of the foundational teachings of the Church.  

Then the question becomes why is this specific teaching so egregious?  Is it because it is about girls?  Is it that girls have hurt feelings?  What makes this specific teaching so much more important than all other examples?  

Rain, I completely support the need for each member and every disciple of Jesus Christ to gain a deeper and better understanding about the atonement of Jesus Christ and completeness of repentance.  I just question the laser focus of this complaint about this topic.  There is obviously another agenda or motivation.  I tend to not follow the crowd when I sense something else going on - there is something else here. 

[Sky]

There has to be a better way to teach the Law of Chastity than using examples of licked cupcakes and already-chewed gum!  Seriously!  This needs to go!

Thankfully, I was not taught this.  But I'm male.  However, I was exposed to Spencer W. Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness."  

I am a firm believer that oftentimes, it is not so much what we teach that is a problem, but how we teach it.     

No sin can be completely undone - as in it never happened.  But it can be repented of.  By all means, lets encourage chastity and fidelity, and repentance when there has been transgression.  But let's also encourage a healthy awareness of our sexuality and its redeeming purposes.

D&C 58:42 -

Quote

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

     The Lord Himself says that we can be clean again and that he won't remember our sins anymore!  

 

 

[Jeanne]

I was taught that on three different occasions.  Jr and Sr. High Seminary...Twinkies..Chewed gum in MIA.and the licked cupcake at girls camp.  I was a teen in the early 70's.

Quote

. Can't get rid of this quote thing..so I will just say it a Hostess cupcake..and don't share!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I came of age in the 1970s.  This was the time that Spencer Kimball's tragic book, miracle of forgiveness was published.  This was one of the few books that were authorized for missionaries to have and to read. It was assigned reading from many Bishops, and it this was the book that spawned so many harsh Sunday School and MIA lessons about how loss of virtue could never fully be reclaimed, and how how sexual sin, the sin next to murder, and could never really fully be repented of.   It minimized the atonement.  I heard many lessons that were inspired by this book, including licked cupcakes and chewed gum.  

I did not grow up in Utah. I was in the mission field and not a month went by that we did not have some type of guilt ridden cup cake lesson shoved in our face. 

CFR that President Kimball wrote or said that sexual sin can never be fully repented of. 

[Scott Lloyd]

As I said before, I remember the nail-in-the-board thing very early on, and then very soon thereafter hearing it strenuously disavowed. And this was 50 years ago or better. 

The licked cupcake and chewing gum things I remember as urban legends being passed along in an effort to show that teachings in the Church that youth hear are stupid. But I don't actually remember hearing them authoritatively taught. 

A lot of people love to badmouth Correlation in the Church, but here is yet another example of why it is necessary. My hunch is many of the people who condemn these misguided teachings are the same ones who hate and vilify Correlation. 

(Rationalization expected in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....)

Edited September 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[gopher]

Never heard any of those analogies growing up on the east coast.  Was the point to discourage youth from having sex before marriage?  I don't see how the analogies can be used to effectively teach the Atonement.

I'd be curious to hear from someone who actually taught using these analogies.  What were you thinking?