Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Indy Coug]

Great, now are we going to fight over whether we've ever actually been counseled that the Book of Mormon was written "for our day" and if so, whether they really meant the opposite of what they said?

The opposite?

[Bruiserstone]

Not true. I was Packmaster for a few months and the Primary President was over me. To be honest, I didn't like it.

Tushay!

[Donuthole]

Tushay!

Wallah!

[Jeff Lebowski]

1. I wondered if these two words had the same meaning over 180 years ago that they do now. PAC and Solon provided some valuable insight into that question. However, I don't believe we have satisfactorily arrived at any conclusions about whether 19th century and 21st century usages are sufficiently equivalent or not. Count me as undecided. Also count me as bemused why this bent people so badly out of shape when I explored this line of questioning. It would seem to me if somehow we could discover that 19th century connotations of these words were significantly different than now, it could perhaps help us remove the subsequent misconceptions that have arisen from this verse's existence.

2. I am also not convinced the choice of words in the translation necessarily captures the intent of the author. Noting that the 1828 definition of the word "virtue" has 10 entries, maybe choosing a word that was less ambiguous in its meaning would have been a better option. The Book of Mormon authors also on at least one occasion offered up a mea culpa for their weakness in writing, so maybe this is one of those instances where they just couldn't quite convey what they really were trying to say. Given how delicate and difficult a topic this is, is it really that hard to think that maybe it was just an honest mistake? Again, count me undecided.

3. Given the context of the scripture, I don't believe the broader extrapolations about virtue and chastity going on in this thread (including the several GA quotations) are necessarily correct conclusions to be drawn from what is in this particular verse.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I doubt anyone here would argue that the scripture is not referring to rape. So here is what is really troubling: this scripture is currently being used by church leaders as a fundamental reference on CHASTITY as we currently understand the word. Here are some examples:

LDS webpage on chastity. Moroni 9:9 is one the primary scriptures offered as a reference.

https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/yw/m...stity?lang=eng

One of the YW personal progress values is virtue. The very first scripture cited is Moroni 9:9 ("Study the meaning and importance of chastity and virtue by reading Moroni 9:9;"). WTF? A scripture about rape is our go-to scripture when teaching chastity?

https://www.lds.org/young-women/pers...irtue?lang=eng

Elaine Dalton has referenced this scripture several times when discussing chastity:

"In order to stay on the path to the temple, you must guard your personal virtue and the virtue of others with whom you associate. Why? Mormon taught in the Book of Mormon that virtue and chastity are “most dear and precious above all things."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/g...irtue?lang=eng

So it puzzles me why you (and others) would mock those of us who are troubled by the wording in this passage. Seems pretty clear that it is widely interpreted at face value, including current church leadership. And I think these references indicate that Elizabeth Smart is right on the money. We have a lot of work yet to do in changing harmful cultural notions about sex and abuse. Moroni 9:9 should NEVER be used as a reference on chastity.

[Indy Coug]

So it puzzles me why you (and others) would mock those of us who are troubled by the wording in this passage. Seems pretty clear that it is widely interpreted at face value, including current church leadership. And I think these references indicate that Elizabeth Smart is right on the money. We have a lot of work yet to do in changing harmful cultural notions about sex and abuse. Moroni 9:9 should NEVER be used as a reference on chastity.

Mocked? Are you talking about my reply to 4th Nephites 'punch someone in the neck' post? If not, what are you talking about? Here's a list of my replies in this thread.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/search....hid=120252&pp=

[Jeff Lebowski]

Mocked? Are you talking about my reply to 4th Nephites 'punch someone in the neck' post? If not, what are you talking about? Here's a list of my replies in this thread.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/search....hid=120252&pp=

Just from the first two pages of the thread:

As long as we all acknowledge there is only one possible way to interpret what that scripture means. As you are a middle aged Mormon mann, in the future I will look to you for answers on 19th Century idioms/colloquialisms, particularly as they pertain to translations from ancient texts. Thanks in advance.

The friggin' point is that perhaps if we took the time to look into this issue maybe we collectively come away with a different understanding of what the meaning/intent of the scripture was, rather than what it is. Then again, maybe we don't. I don't see what the problem is with bringing up the point that subsequent changes in the English leads us to read this differently now than it was understood back then.

WTF do you get that 'rape victims need to educate themselves'?

Either way, this is another red herring. Mocked, disagreed with, whatever... You know what I mean.

[Indy Coug]

Just from the first two pages of the thread:










Either way, this is another red herring. Mocked, disagreed with, whatever... You know what I mean.

You really really really seem to be hung up on red herrings/strawmen/etc. First, you are really bad at identifying them. Secondly, if you're really troubled that much by their use, then perhaps you should remove them from your own repertoire.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You really really really seem to be hung up on red herrings/strawmen/etc. First, you are really bad at identifying them. Secondly, if you're really troubled that much by their use, then perhaps you should remove them from your own repertoire.

Care to comment on the main point of my post?

[Indy Coug]

Care to comment on the main point of my post?

Care to re-read what I've already said? I've already commented.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Well, at least there's no mention of gum or cupcakes. If only I knew what definition of 'virtuous' they were going off of.

https://www.lds.org/youth/video/chas...imits?lang=eng

[LA Ute]

No, they are not very complex. A child or adolescent was violated by someone older, usually someone they know or trust. As for the number of victims who have responsibility in their abuse, what would you put that percentage at? 1%? 0.1%? 0.0001%? If this is the group that Scott is addressing, talk about straining at the gnats.

Just saw this. I meant that the victim's response to what is happening to him/her is complex.

[Eddie]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I doubt anyone here would argue that the scripture is not referring to rape. So here is what is really troubling: this scripture is currently being used by church leaders as a fundamental reference on CHASTITY as we currently understand the word. Here are some examples:

LDS webpage on chastity. Moroni 9:9 is one the primary scriptures offered as a reference.

https://www.lds.org/youth/learn/yw/m...stity?lang=eng

One of the YW personal progress values is virtue. The very first scripture cited is Moroni 9:9 ("Study the meaning and importance of chastity and virtue by reading Moroni 9:9;"). WTF? A scripture about rape is our go-to scripture when teaching chastity?

https://www.lds.org/young-women/pers...irtue?lang=eng

Elaine Dalton has referenced this scripture several times when discussing chastity:

"In order to stay on the path to the temple, you must guard your personal virtue and the virtue of others with whom you associate. Why? Mormon taught in the Book of Mormon that virtue and chastity are “most dear and precious above all things."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2011/05/g...irtue?lang=eng

So it puzzles me why you (and others) would mock those of us who are troubled by the wording in this passage. Seems pretty clear that it is widely interpreted at face value, including current church leadership. And I think these references indicate that Elizabeth Smart is right on the money. We have a lot of work yet to do in changing harmful cultural notions about sex and abuse. Moroni 9:9 should NEVER be used as a reference on chastity.

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. I understand that you wouldn't want to use Moroni 9:9 as a lesson on ways that someone can sin by being a victim. But I'm not sure I understand the harm in referring to chastity/virtue as being most precious. Frankly - I think there are all kinds of scriptural references used about a variety of things that barely match up and don't necessarily make sense all of the time. But this one seems pretty straight forward if you are simply saying "Look. Moroni described it as something most precious. I view it as most precious too."

If this is the only scripture being used and/or the only context being used in a discussion on chastity/morality - then I certainly agree with you. This should never be the foundation for that discussion. I don't think anyone believes it should be.

In all honesty - if you want to there is a means to find a bad correlation between scripture and real life with nearly every scripture out there. It is easy to be offended when you are looking for it.

You've said over and over again how troubling some of the notions are that folks have about sex and abuse. Don't you think that it would be somewhat helpful to dispel those notions if folks were given a more appropriate interpretation of the scripture? If they are reading the scriptures, they are going to happen across them all by themselves. So perhaps sharing insight into a more healthy and helpful interpretation would go further in changing these notions than simply ignoring them altogether.

[Solon]

This might be the worst thread in the history of this place.

I know I didn't exactly help it out, but the amount of parsing and interpreting was uncomfortable for me to read.

[SoCalCoug]

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. I understand that you wouldn't want to use Moroni 9:9 as a lesson on ways that someone can sin by being a victim. But I'm not sure I understand the harm in referring to chastity/virtue as being most precious. Frankly - I think there are all kinds of scriptural references used about a variety of things that barely match up and don't necessarily make sense all of the time. But this one seems pretty straight forward if you are simply saying "Look. Moroni described it as something most precious. I view it as most precious too."

If this is the only scripture being used and/or the only context being used in a discussion on chastity/morality - then I certainly agree with you. This should never be the foundation for that discussion. I don't think anyone believes it should be.

In all honesty - if you want to there is a means to find a bad correlation between scripture and real life with nearly every scripture out there. It is easy to be offended when you are looking for it.

You've said over and over again how troubling some of the notions are that folks have about sex and abuse. Don't you think that it would be somewhat helpful to dispel those notions if folks were given a more appropriate interpretation of the scripture? If they are reading the scriptures, they are going to happen across them all by themselves. So perhaps sharing insight into a more healthy and helpful interpretation would go further in changing these notions than simply ignoring them altogether.

Is virginity truly "precious"? (Chastity to non-married young people is unequivocally equated with virginity, so if you're an outlier and and they don't mean the same to you, congratulations.) Isn't it really the ability to engage in a sexual relationship with someone with whom you are engaged in an intimate relationship the truly precious commodity.

When you consider virginity to be "precious," then to lose it is a negative thing. It should not be. It should be a wonderful thing to lose you virginity. You are fulfilling one of the purposes of your existence.

Many of us have a mature understanding of virtue and chastity and virginity. We don't have problems misunderstanding these things.

But many young people don't. They're learning about it. If their parents are embarrassed to talk much about sex, they don't get great guidance from their parents. Then throw in things like your "virtue" and "chastity" being most precious above all else, or things like it's better to lose your life than to lose your virtue, you get kids with warped understanding of sex and chastity and virtue.

It's frustrating to try to have this discussion only to get sidetracked by questions of what "virtue" meant in 1830, or whether a young woman could interpret "It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle" to mean that if she is raped and still lives, she didn't struggle enough, and therefore feels guilt.

[UVACoug]

Is his talk from 1992 being used in lesson manuals? Just curious. Anyone know?

Also, is this the statement that has some people concerned?



First, those are 20 words in a talk 2,091 words long. Proportion is important. Second, if anyone is saying that what Elder Scott describes is simply impossible in all cases, I respectfully disagree. I do agree with Jarid that it is certainly exceedingly rare for that to occur, and when it does the "degree of responsibility" is probably in that .0001% category I mentioned. But it's very real, and disproportionately large, in the victim's mind. If victim is someone who cares about spiritual matters, they need spiritual healing. I think those are the folks he was addressing.

At this point I am arguing about counting angels on the head of a pin, so I will stop.

This is all I meant ... said in a much better way. I think this is exactly what Elder Scott was saying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD