Licked Cupcake & Used Chewing Gum Poll

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Teachings that have caused problems for people are pretty numerous.  We live in a time when people seek to take offense by anything and anybody.  We also have an inordinate value put on hurt feelings; it is as if your feelings getting hurt is paramount to being murdered or bodily tortured for long hours.  But, I digress.  Teachings that have caused problems (in no particular order):

1. The Adam God theory
2. Blacks and the priesthood
3. When is a prophet not a prophet
4. the Word of Wisdom being equated or becoming more important than the Law of Chastity
5. Praise to the Man - Joseph Smith being the focus of our teachings rather than Jesus Christ

This list can get pretty long because we are in the unfortunate position of having a membership full of humans.  Our leaders and our members have taught a vast number of heresies, falsehoods, and false doctrine.  Each of these have caused harm to someone by misleading them for a number of years.  

Let's focus on what we are talking about specifically - some teachers seeking to teach the sanctity of the human body and the importance of keeping ourselves pure became so focused they forgot or misunderstood other important teachings.  Did anyone die as a result of these teachings?  Has anyone lost their salvation as a result have being brutally forced to listen to them one time or as many as eight times if the lesson was taught twice a year?  Was every child taught these heinous, overly wrought teachings destroyed or simply confused about certain teachings of the gospel?  

I don't think it is necessary to exaggerate things or to wring our hands over stupid humans doing wrong.  The reality - not a single individual was destroyed as a result of badly worded analogies.  If they were such apt students surely they would have been just as receptive to corrections or at least other teachings to clarified certain points which these silly teachings caused concern.  

So you are ok if some teach false doctrine? No changes necessary?

[Five Solas]

These poll results (at present, most voting "no") serves as reminder this board's participants aren't necessary representative of the LDS experience at large.  That, or we've got some seriously selective memories out there...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Elizabeth Smart's feedback was spot on.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Let's focus on what we are talking about specifically - some teachers seeking to teach the sanctity of the human body and the importance of keeping ourselves pure became so focused they forgot or misunderstood other important teachings.  Did anyone die as a result of these teachings?  Has anyone lost their salvation as a result have being brutally forced to listen to them one time or as many as eight times if the lesson was taught twice a year?  Was every child taught these heinous, overly wrought teachings destroyed or simply confused about certain teachings of the gospel?  \

Please don't overinflate what posters here are discussing.

Would you respond to Elizabeth Smart's comments if you were present when she shared her concerns with them with "did you die as a result of these teachings? Did you lose your salvation?  Were you destroyed or simply confused?

I hope you will answer my other two questions of whether or not you believe that Smart has a different agenda than just teaching the gospel or if President Holland did.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

46 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You don't know this.

Do you know anyone?  Yes or no?

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

These poll results (at present, most voting "no") serves as reminder this board's participants aren't necessary representative of the LDS experience at large.  That, or we've got some seriously selective memories out there...

;0)

 

How would you even know that?  You may be correct,  but I haven't seen anything to back up your assumption that the numbers have anything to do with selective memories or the members being representative. 

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please don't overinflate what posters here are discussing.

Would you respond to Elizabeth Smart's comments if you were present when she shared her concerns with them with "did you die as a result of these teachings? Did you lose your salvation?  Were you destroyed or simply confused?

I hope you will answer my other two questions of whether or not you believe that Smart has a different agenda than just teaching the gospel or if President Holland did.

I am sorry, Calm, I did not see those or did not focus on them.  I will look for your questions.

[Storm Rider]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

So you are ok if some teach false doctrine? No changes necessary?

Rain that is a gross distortion of what I have said and the many edits where I specifically clarified my position regarding false doctrine and the stupidity of humans.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Rain that is a gross distortion of what I have said and the many edits where I specifically clarified my position regarding false doctrine and the stupidity of humans.

It was an actual clarifying question. Not a distortion. I realize that some people make accusations with questions.  I don't. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by Rain

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

SR, do you think President Holland had a different agenda then teaching the gospel when he taught the above?  If not, then why assume anyone else who wishes to replace the false teaching with true doctrine feels differently?

I don’t know what SR means, which impedes my interpretation of your question. With that handicap, and answering from my innate bias, I share the same understanding of the Gospel as President Holland seems have according to his teaching. I think it is a sign of repentance when someone replaces his false teachings with true doctrine, and a sign of charity to lead him to take that step.

My post is a stand-alone reply to the poll, not a response to any of the other posts or posters.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is hardly a "laser focus" to recognize a false teaching (yes, they occur in church, just think of false teachings that once and even now surround the Priesthood ban or teach that men are spiritually disabled in comparison to women) and want to be part of the effort to remove it when one recognizes the harm it can do, such as after listening to Elizabeth Smart describe her heartbreaking experience.****

Or do you see her as having another agenda? (Serious question)

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

"It was right after this experience that Smart recalled a lesson she had as a young woman, in which she was told, "You're like this stick of gum, and if you have sex before you're married, it's like someone chews up that piece of gum, and then when you're done, who wants a piece of gum that's already chewed up? No one."

While the intention of the lesson was to teach uplifting, eternal values, the overall message failed to communicate that she was a daughter of loving Heavenly Parents who would love and want her, no matter what.

Even after her rescue, Smart sat through another such lesson, in which she was told: "You're like this beautiful fence, and you hammer these nails in, and then every time you have sex with someone else, it's like you're hammering in another nail. And you can take them out, you can repent of them, but the holes are still there."

Another analogy that misses the point of the gospel and our Savior Jesus Christ, who came to this world to atone for our sins and to experience our pains so that in every circumstance He can make us pure, make us whole, and heal our broken hearts. Analogies like these can not only limit our divine worth and power, they also can limit His.

"I just remember thinking, This is terrible," Smart shares. "Do they not realize I'm sitting in class? Do they not realize that I'm listening to what they're saying?""

I think this is the edit I missed that addressed Elizabeth Smart.

I don't see Elizabeth Smart have another agenda nor is she a acknowledged participant on this board.  

Now, when I first read this I realized that this individual has a - not unique - but an experience that very few in the Church could empathize with or understand.  Regardless, it is easy for anyone to understand how Sister Smart would be laser focused on that long ago teaching while at the same time excluding all other teachings that were about the Atonement, forgiveness, etc.  Calm, who or what would try and get Sister Smart to focus solely on this lesson?  Do you think her teacher at this time could or possibly did put caveats to her teaching?  Would Satan want Sister Smart to focus solely on something to tear herself down and to demoralize her?  

How many lessons do each of us teach our children and other people wherein we do not include all of the caveats?  Be honest here because if any of Sister Smart's teachers reads some of these comments I am not interested in them going out and blowing their brains out because of the perceived harm she concludes she did to Sister Smart, which I am sure was not her intention or desire.

People need to be corrected in their teaching.  Certain topics need even more careful review to ensure that others are not mislead or that we are not forgetting the more vitally important teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  In supporting correction I am also not saying that we need to crucify people for their own stupidity or lack of understanding or compassion.  Each of you that are supporting this line of thinking should put yourself in that teachers shoes.  How would you want to be corrected?  When would you want to be corrected?  By whom should you be corrected?  By a parent, a home teacher, the Young Women's leader, the bishop?  

It is clear that before any of us - and I have never given a lesson to the youth on this topic - gives a lesson to the youth on chastity and/or virtue we each need to be clear on what is we are trying to teach and what impression or principle do we want each member to leave our lesson thinking about.  

This is not a gender issue; this is about how do we best teach our youth the value and importance of our bodies; how we should treat them; how we abuse them; and how others abuse them.  More importantly, in any event the Atonement of Jesus Christ is there for each of us, in every situation, to gain forgiveness for our own actions and to forgive others for their actions.  

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t know what SR means, which impedes my interpretation of your question. With that handicap, and answering from my innate bias, I share the same understanding of the Gospel as President Holland seems have according to his teaching. I think it is a sign of repentance when someone replaces his false teachings with true doctrine, and a sign of charity to lead him to take that step.

 

My post is a stand-alone reply to the poll, not a response to any of the other posts or posters.

 

SR means Storm rider...sorry, I was pointing out your post quote to him.  Great find, btw.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think this is the edit I missed that addressed Elizabeth Smart.

I don't see Elizabeth Smart have another agenda nor is she a acknowledged participant on this board.  

Now, when I first read this I realized that this individual has a - not unique - but an experience that very few in the Church could empathize with or understand.  Regardless, it is easy for anyone to understand how Sister Smart would be laser focused on that long ago teaching while at the same time excluding all other teachings that were about the Atonement, forgiveness, etc.  Calm, who or what would try and get Sister Smart to focus solely on this lesson?  Do you think her teacher at this time could or possibly did put caveats to her teaching?  Would Satan want Sister Smart to focus solely on something to tear herself down and to demoralize her?  

Long ago teaching?  The woman is 28 years old, was abducted in 2002, returned in 2003 so she had to have been taught the second lesson sometime between 2003 and 2006, so around ten years ago and absolutely nor more than 15.  And if you read her story, she did not and does not exclude the teachings of the Atonement while she is criticizing this false doctrine.

And unfortunately while some of her experience was rare, the abuse and rape is much more common.  There is likely at least one girl in every young women's group that has been abused or rape and many more that have been sexually active.

I think the Spirit has given Sister Smart "laser focus" on the subject so she can help other youth and women who feel as trapped as she did find hope.

And as far as participants on the board, if you are directing your comments solely to them, then Rain and I have been among the most vocal.  What do you think our agenda is?  And please no one report him to the mods if you read him as being offensive or breaking board rules.  And if a mod reads this, please don't act on anything you feel crosses the line in regards to me (and I hope Rain feels the same way).  I would like your honest opinion of what you think motivates my desire to have this approach and certain others actively removed from church teaching.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Calm

[Glenn101]

   I never was taught or heard either of the two. I am half male, or rather, I should say I am half a man. anymore. I was taught the nails in a board analogy. But the point that I remember about the holes being left the effects that our sins leave on us or on people around us. We surely are cleansed from the the sin itself, but some effects can still be felt in our lives and the lives around us.

Take, for example, a drug addict or an alcoholic. He or she can be cleansed through repentance (and baptism if not a member of the church) but the physical changes in the body caused by the addiction still will be there. Another example is infidelity and the disastrous consequences to the ones betrayed. Those effects can last a lifetime, no matter how sincere and remorseful the repentance.

Glenn

[Rain]

No one is here to crucify teachers when they teach false doctrine. The intent here is that we should stop using analogies like this. 

It is interesting you asked about correcting others.  I did so today.  The teacher/RS 1st counselor had a couple of quotes by Elder Packer on a handout read in class and in between them she had her own statement. There were no quotation marks in that statement, but there were typos in the handout so I wasn't sure if that was hers or a quote.

I also wasn't sure it was correct. I could see some problems with it if people thought it was correct and Elder Pavker's so I pulled out my phone to see what I could find.  I couldn't find anything quickly. 

So afterwards I waited till class cleared out and I clarified to see if these words were hers or Elder Packer's. They were hers.  Then I told her,  "I'm not sure this is true" and shared my understanding.  She was grateful I told her and asked why I didn't say anything in class.  I told her it was because I hadn't been able to make sure I was right in class.  She and I decided we would both research it this week, learn together  and then if need be she would correct herself next week.  

These analogies are far reaching.  They didn't get corrected and are still circulating  (my 18 yo daughter has been told them though not by a teacher that she can remember). Emotions aside it is important to talk about and correct these analogies so that they can quit being passed around our young people as doctrine. 

[Five Solas]

48 minutes ago, Rain said:

How would you even know that?  You may be correct,  but I haven't seen anything to back up your assumption that the numbers have anything to do with selective memories or the members being representative. 

I was there, Rain.  I spent my formative years in Utah, Sevier County and later my high school years in unincorporated Salt Lake County (I graduated from Hillcrest High in Midvale).  And then I spent most of my college years through now in Seattle, but along the way spent a year commuting to LA (where I'd visit the local singles ward when I stayed over the weekends, which was often), three years doing the same in Dallas and a year in Denver.  

And much of my extended family is LDS.  So, do I know what I'm talking about?  You're safe to assume I probably do... 

;0)

--Erik

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Do you know anyone?  Yes or no?

No, but I'm only one person.

Have you talked to every LDS youth who heard these lessons so you could make your claim?

[Rain]

37 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I was there, Rain.  I spent my formative years in Utah, Sevier County and later my high school years in unincorporated Salt Lake County (I graduated from Hillcrest High in Midvale).  And then I spent most of my college years through now in Seattle, but along the way spent a year commuting to LA (where I'd visit the local singles ward when I stayed over the weekends, which was often), three years doing the same in Dallas and a year in Denver.  

And much of my extended family is LDS.  So, do I know what I'm talking about?  You're safe to assume I probably do... 

;0)

--Erik

So you are basing your conclusion of selective memories and the poll not being representive on your own experiences and the experiences of your family?  Or is there something more?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Rain

[Five Solas]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

So you are basing your conclusion of selective memories and the poll not being representive on your own experiences and the experiences of your family?  Or is there something more?

I'll gladly leave our readers to decide if there needs be "something more," Rain.

--Erik

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I'll gladly leave our readers to decide if there needs be "something more," Rain.

--Erik

I was the one who asked the questions, not "our readers". I wanted to see if you had evidence of your conclusions without a CFR since that seems to be taken as an emotional accusation lately. Maybe there was another poll, study etc. you had seen that showed different results etc.  If the answer is yes, you have something more, I would love to see it since I am faccinated by this type of thing.  If no then I don't need to look at it further. But I won't badger you for an answer.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Long ago teaching?  The woman is 28 years old, was abducted in 2002, returned in 2003 so she had to have been taught the second lesson sometime between 2003 and 2006, so around ten years ago and absolutely nor more than 15.  And if you read her story, she did not and does not exclude the teachings of the Atonement while she is criticizing this false doctrine.

And unfortunately while some of her experience was rare, the abuse and rape is much more common.  There is likely at least one girl in every young women's group that has been abused or rape and many more that have been sexually active.

I think the Spirit has given Sister Smart "laser focus" on the subject so she can help other youth and women who feel as trapped as she did find hope.

And as far as participants on the board, if you are directing your comments solely to them, then Rain and I have been among the most vocal.  What do you think our agenda is?  And please no one report him to the mods if you read him as being offensive or breaking board rules.  And if a mod reads this, please don't act on anything you feel crosses the line in regards to me (and I hope Rain feels the same way).  I would like your honest opinion of what you think motivates my desire to have this approach and certain others actively removed from church teaching.

Calm, you know me better, or I hope you know me better.  I think I generally understand your POV and your direction - you nor Rain are included among those comments.  I don't feel like identifying posters by name, but I don't think it is difficult to identify who I might be addressing.  Critics that jump on the topic, any topic, take the more negative approach and never allow the Church to be seen as anything other than wrong.  

Sister Smart has an objective in her talk.  She is speaking to convince others, to enroll them into your way of thinking.  Such approaches are not conducive to an open discussion because its intent is to sway the listener.  There is no judgment in this; it is just her function as an advocate.  She has an objective and it is about two things, according to the article, 1)  standing up for rape victims, and 2)  tearing down the purity culture.

This article does not do a good job explaining what is so bad about having a purity culture in religion or society.  Sister Smart simply cites several different analogies that she wants stopped, but she does not say what she wants in their place.  If not purity then what?  When did purity become something dirty, unwanted, or undesirable?  Is this for everyone or just a special group of people?  Why?

Following are several quotes from the article:

    “The trauma of the sexual violence that Elizabeth endured was made even worse, she says, by the fact that she was raised in a deeply religious household that prioritized abstinence.”  This is problematic for The Church of Jesus Christ and for all of Christianity.  If abstinence taught or is not prioritized then what?  What exactly should we teach?  
    “Well, then I was kidnapped and I was raped, and one of the first thoughts I had was, No one is ever going to want to marry me now: I'm worthless, I'm filthy, I'm dirty. I think every rape survivor feels those same feelings, but having that with the pressure of faith compounded on top—it was almost crippling."  How many articles have you read that discuss these types of feelings - I am dirty, worthless, unworthy, etc.?  You don't need to be a rape victim or survivor to have these feelings.  I have heard speakers and I have read articles that indicate or allude that Satan works in this way to destroy our relationship with our Father in Heaven.  Faith, she says, crippled her, made it worse.  Honestly, I have never read another person that has gone through a horrible experience - almost murdered, raped, homes destroyed, devastating war experiences, loss of children in terrible ways, etc. and not a single one of them has mentioned that faith crippled them or that there was this dark side to having faith or being an individual of faith.  To the contrary, faith gave each of them the strength to overcome; to continue; to live.  This article does not do a good job explaining this proposition.  Regardless, I have a major problem with it for the simple reason that it is wrong.  This proposition has nothing to do with my understanding of faith, God's love, or anything else about his gospel.  If you are looking for something confusing and/or false - this is it.
    “Most surprising for those who have come to see her as the poster girl for Mormon modesty is that she is taking the church to task on some of its more sexist teachings. "I think the power of faith is amazing, the hope and the healing that it can bring to people," says Elizabeth, who credits her everlasting faith for the strength she had to survive Mitchell's abuse. "But I also think there's another side of it that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage... It's so stressed that girls in particular tie their worth to their virginity, or, for lack of a better word, purity."”   Here she restates her position, but now gives faith the position that most other people who have overcome horrible experiences - it gave her the strength to go on, to overcome.  Something is wrong and I suspect it is the author of the article; she is striving to match her objectives to Sister Smart and her experience.  Alternatively, this is where I think there  is a disconnect.  She needs to be more careful about her words - as careful as she is wanting everyone else to be when they discuss sexuality with our youth.  She says girls tie their worth to their virginity - this may be a reality, but it is not the Gospel.  This is an example of where individuals make a deduction from teachings that is not accurate.  Purity is never wrong - an individual's distortions or misunderstandings about it are wrong.  The pursuit of holiness, righteousness, and/or purity should always be encouraged.  It is imperative that youth understand the difference between going out and having sex with your boyfriend you met last week and being raped.  These are not similar and never have been.  Young women and young men need to understand that when there is no free agency involved there is not responsibility for what occurs. That understanding is what is needed - not an attack or a desire to destroy purity teachings in the Church.
    "The way we talk about [sex and abstinence] needs to change," she continues. "People need to realize there is nothing that can detract from your worth. When it comes to rape and sexual violence and abuse, that can never detract from who you are."  This is where she is correct, but I see no relationship between this position and her comments about purity.  
    “Plus, then it goes back to the religious stigma, because BYU is a church-owned school." These situations should be handled gently, she believes, and on a case-by-case basis.”  This just seems like good common sense - she is talking about the rape victims at BYU - her advice here is good, valid, and healthy.  Why should they not be handled gently and on a case-by-case basis.  

Sister Smart is an outstanding advocate.  I am not sure this article does a great job about informing us about her entire position because it is obvious there are conflicts within the article and I doubt they exist in Sister Smart's actual position.  

Can we discuss sexuality better?  Of course!  Every time we discuss it we can do it better than before.  However, I would also say that a lot depends on the audience - it always does.  I reject the proposition that there are youth would be better off if we stopped talking about purity, chastity, holiness, or righteousness.  I don't think there are any benefits to such a position because no one has demonstrated that these principles are wrong.  I am all for clarifying teachings so that individuals are not confused, misinformed, or just did not get it.  
 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Rivers]

I remember getting the crumpled up dollar bill analogy.  No matter how much you crumple it up, it's still worth a dollar.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Rivers

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think it's probable that these object lessons were created by some youth teacher and passed along to others, who then passed them along...

I think so too.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Sky said:

He didn't exactly say that, but he did say this:

"Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

- The Miracle of Forgiveness

 

 

 

 

This is definitely not the same thing as saying sexual sin cannot be fully repented of. It's not even close.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I am all for correlation because of this and other false teachings.  In fact, I wish the Church put out a list of "spurious materials" similar to what they do for CES for Sunday School, youth teachers and even for FHE that included all these analogies plus anything else that sees the light of day that is so, so wrong.

I would applaud such an initiative.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

They say that cowards die a thousand deaths, but a brave man only dies once.  Many if not most of us have taken the easy way out, much to our shame.

There may be some instances where it is better just to consider the source and let the matter be.

On two occasions, after I had written articles mentioning the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I received a voicemail from the same elderly man, incensed about what I had written. His outrage can be summed up in his declaration: "Now you listen here: Mountain Meadows was the only battle we ever won."

I never did return those phone calls. I reasoned that it would do little good -- I would be highly unlikely to change his mind -- and might do harm by exacerbating contention.

Not very long afterward, I did a Google search on the man's name and found his obituary. Maybe he will be less dogmatic in the hereafter. When one is that far wrong, and that belligerent about it, the odds are slim he will change in the here and now.

You can say I was a craven coward if you wish, but I think few people here would say I'm one that typically shies away from an argument. In fact, I might err more often in the opposite way.

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Scott Lloyd