Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[CardiacCoug]

This is not parsing. It's very thoughtful. Thanks.

EDIT: It occurs to me that Moroni 9 is a letter from Mormon to Moroni, which Moroni apparently transcribed. He may have translated from whatever language Mormon used into Reformed Egyptian. That probably doesn't mean anything but it's interesting.

Seriously? Do normal people really still think Reformed Egyptian was a real thing? Boggles my mind.

[LA Ute]

Geez, LA, really? "Come Follow Me"?

I wonder which publication gets more individual, unaided (and uncontextualized--yeah, I'm making up a word...shut it!) attention.
I still don't think passages about war should be used to teach chastity. I don't trust lay teachers to do that well. But I'm in Utah, where we have a few imperfect ones--you wouldn't understand.

Like I said, I think Moroni 9:9 is an odd choice, contextually, to teach the principle that "chastity is dear and precious." I'd use others if I were teaching. Anyway, I get that it's the context of Mor. 9:9 that people dislike. If people are saying that Mormon's letter to Moroni makes too big a deal out of the value of chastity, or that the church's teachings do that, then I think that is getting pretty far "out there." If individual members are using the licked cupcake nonsense, they need to be spoken to about that. As for me and my house, we will teach the gold coin object lesson. We don't have to stand by and let local church leaders, even if well-intentioned, teach false or damaging ideas to our kids.

EDIT: I also get the idea that it seems odd for Mormon to say that victims of rape have been deprived of chastity and virtue. That has always struck me as dissonant. I would not use that scripture to teach the value of chastity and virtue.

Interesting thread.

[CardiacCoug]

If people are saying that Mormon's letter to Moroni makes too big a deal out of the value of chastity, then I think that is getting pretty far "out there."

Sure, it's mostly the context that should be repulsive even to orthodox Mormons.

But sure, "chastity" as defined by the LDS Church isn't "most dear and precious above all things" either. Let's be honest. And by "out there" you mean it's what most non-LDS people believe.

The LDS strict prohibition against extra-marital sex is strange and nonsensical.

[Indy Coug]

Seriously? Do normal people really still think Reformed Egyptian was a real thing the Book of Mormon was really written by someone besides Joseph Smith? Boggles my mind.

FIFY

[jay santos]

This is not parsing. It's very thoughtful. Thanks.

EDIT: It occurs to me that Moroni 9 is a letter from Mormon to Moroni, which Moroni apparently transcribed. He may have translated from whatever language Mormon used into Reformed Egyptian. That probably doesn't mean anything but it's interesting.

This is a great LDS apologist approach that is building up steam. We've gone from the prophet is a mouthpiece for God and the BOM is the most correct book on the Earth, to well the prophet tries hard but he can't be right all the time and the well the BOM is a nice idea, but you've got a lot of imperfect men following imperfect processes so we really shouldn't have any preconceived expectations on things like well umm TRUTH.

Nice job, God. Good way to run your business.

[Indy Coug]

Although painful to read, the discussion was useful. I liked Swampfrog's synthesis. Was he the one who was afraid to join CS because he didn't want to be disagreed with and mocked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

[Indy Coug]

This is the part some people don't get. All the talk of trying to determine what virtue means (or meant back in 1830 or in Christs time) are meaningless in this discussion. The word chastity appears in Moroni 9:9. Also, our prophets in our day have interpreted the word "virtue" in Moroni 9:9 to basically mean "virginity" or "chastity" which is evidence in the Personal Progress booklet.

Mormon may have been wrong in his wording. Moroni may have had limited ability to translate the meaning into Reformed Egyptian. Joseph Smith might not have translated the verses accurately (or didn't have adequate language to convey the real meaning). But today, in 2013 and apparently into the future, a verse in the BoM that literally says that chastity and virtue were deprived from those women is being used to teach chastity to our teenage daughters.

Listen, a whole "discussion" (which would have been a very loose use of the word) of people raging against the use of Mormon 9:9 in our modern curriculum would have been both predictable and useless. So why not at least explore the root of the problem, which is digging deeper into the scripture itself and discuss whether or not the original context and meaning are in harmony with how it is utilized today? To me, that seems like a much more interesting and potentially much more productive enterprise than a bunch of people patting each other on the back as they rage into the night in unison.

[LA Ute]

This is a great LDS apologist approach that is building up steam. We've gone from the prophet is a mouthpiece for God and the BOM is the most correct book on the Earth, to well the prophet tries hard but he can't be right all the time and the well the BOM is a nice idea, but you've got a lot of imperfect men following imperfect processes so we really shouldn't have any preconceived expectations on things like well umm TRUTH.

Nice job, God. Good way to run your business.

You're giving me too much credit. The idea that Mormon might have written his epistle to Moroni in one language, and that Moroni might have to rewrite it in Reformed Egyptian, simply struck me as interesting. I hadn't seen it anywhere else, so I doubt it is an emerging apologetic theme.

Now that I think about that notion, it's all the more interesting in light of this, from the very same epistle by Mormon:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

I get it that my approach to these matters is different from yours, and from that of the great majority of people who post here. This entire thread reminds me of that difference. Generally, I find the Foyer to be a sad and angry place. But it is important to many people and they enjoy it, so it serves that purpose. Also, I must admit that I've learned a lot in this thread and gained some valuable insight into teaching young women. I appreciate that value in coming here sometimes.

[smokymountainrain]

I find the Foyer to be a sad and angry place.

I couldn't agree more. But now that I think about it, I'm a little concerned with myself that I find it all that sadness and anger so entertaining.

[jay santos]

You're giving me too much credit. The idea that Mormon might have written his epistle to Moroni in one language, and that Moroni might have to rewrite it in Reformed Egyptian, simply struck me as interesting. I hadn't seen it anywhere else, so I doubt it is an emerging apologetic theme.

Now that I think about that notion, it's all the more interesting in light of this, from the very same epistle by Mormon:



I get it that my approach to these matters is different from yours, and from that of the great majority of people who post here. This entire thread reminds me of that difference. Generally, I find the Foyer to be a sad and angry place. But it is important to many people and they enjoy it, so it serves that purpose. Also, I must admit that I've learned a lot in this thread and gained some valuable insight into teaching young women. I appreciate that value in coming here sometimes.

If you find the Foyer to be sad and angry, it might be more about you and the other posters in the Foyer. I'm not sad or angry about the weird stuff in the Book of Mormon or the methods that people use to defend it. You've interpreted my tone drastically wrong before.

and PS, I know you're in tune to the Apologist community and what the recent trends and arguments are, so I don't think I'm giving you too much credit.

[LA Ute]

If you find the Foyer to be sad and angry, it might be more about you and the other posters in the Foyer.

Hey, I'm just being honest. But I have to be in the right mood to play rhetorical mind games. Maybe later. Still, I am glad you are so happy.

[ERCougar]

The past little while, I've noticed this strange phenomenon among Mormons--that of assuming that anyone outside the faith is terribly unhappy. It's rarely overt (although sometimes it is), it's usually pretty subtle, and it often comes from good well-meaning people. I doubt it's really intended most of the time, but the subtext is definitely there. I guess it's human nature--we all think that we've chosen the right path or we probably wouldn't be still on it, right?--but I swear it runs more strongly in the church.

Is this place angry? Well, on this subject, yeah, I feel some anger--I think the church culture outside of LAUte's ward is really screwing up some young women up (including those not victims of sexual abuse, but that's another discussion) and that makes me angry both because some of those women are loved ones and out of just a general sense of humanity that also makes me feel sorry for the FLDS women I see at our Costco. But sad? I don't get that one, but I think it belies this tendency I'm talking about.

Want to know the truth? These types of discussions just leave me with this overwhelming sense of...freedom (?). Freedom from trying to wrap my mind around and then defend what is craziness in my mind. It's like a huge weight is lifted, in the words of CS Lewis, "a drink of cold water to a man in the desert" (you'll get the allusion, LA... ). I could go further and quote some Alma 32 here, but you get the idea. I just wonder if jay's right--maybe some are looking in a mirror.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is this place angry? Well, on this subject, yeah, I feel some anger--I think the church culture outside of LAUte's ward is really screwing up some young women (including those not victims of sexual abuse, but that's another discussion) and that makes me angry both because some of those women are loved ones and out of just a general sense of humanity that also makes me feel sorry for the FLDS women I see at our Costco. But sad? I don't get that one, but I think it belies this tendency I'm talking about.

Yeah, of course the feelings will be passionate on a topic like this. Did anyone expect rainbows and sunshine in a discussion about rape, abuse, and institutional issues that may be harmful?

But LAU likes to take a swipe at CS/the Foyer every 2-3 posts he makes, so that is OK. That's part of his role here.

[LA Ute]

The past little while, I've noticed this strange phenomenon among Mormons--that of assuming that anyone outside the faith is terribly unhappy. It's rarely overt (although sometimes it is), it's usually pretty subtle, and it often comes from good well-meaning people. I doubt it's really intended most of the time, but the subtext is definitely there. I guess it's human nature--we all think that we've chosen the right path or we probably wouldn't be still on it, right?--but I swear it runs more strongly in the church.

Is this place angry? Well, on this subject, yeah, I feel some anger--I think the church culture outside of LAUte's ward is really screwing up some young women up (including those not victims of sexual abuse, but that's another discussion) and that makes me angry both because some of those women are loved ones and out of just a general sense of humanity that also makes me feel sorry for the FLDS women I see at our Costco. But sad? I don't get that one, but I think it belies this tendency I'm talking about.

Want to know the truth? These types of discussions just leave me with this overwhelming sense of...freedom (?). Freedom from trying to wrap my mind around and then defend what is craziness in my mind. It's like a huge weight is lifted, in the words of CS Lewis, "a drink of cold water to a man in the desert" (you'll get the allusion, LA... ). I could go further and quote some Alma 32 here, but you get the idea. I just wonder if jay's right--maybe some are looking in a mirror.

This is really fascinating. I'm just pointing out what I think is pretty obvious to any outside observer. It's not about "anyone outside the faith," just this subforum on this board. The general tone is angry, and it is directed at the church or at Mormon cultural warts. (Not to mention anyone who persists in espousing a believer's point of view.) I also sense sadness, but I may be wrong about that. So far the two who have responded profess both happiness and freedom. (Lebowski just defends his board.) That's why very few believers come here any more, which also seems fine with everyone here. The notion that this subforum might just be a bit of a bubble seems silly to you all. Like I said, fascinating.

I love the "looking in a mirror" idea. You guys must be channeling good old Triplet. He loved to tell people "Your response says much more about you than it does about X." It's a nifty way to turn the point back on the originator, especially when one feels that the originator might be getting close to an uncomfortable truth.

But LAU likes to take a swipe at CS/the Foyer every 2-3 posts he makes, so that is OK. That's part of his role here.

Nice try.

[jay santos]

This is really fascinating. I'm just pointing out what I think is pretty obvious to any outside observer. It's not about "anyone outside the faith," just this subforum on this board. The general tone is angry, and it is directed at the church or at Mormon cultural warts. (Not to mention anyone who persists in espousing a believer's point of view.) I also sense sadness, but I may be wrong about that.

This is what my marriage counselor calls a "call to authority". I'm not sure I agree that it's obvious to everyone that the Foyer tone is sad and angry.

I can't speak for everyone or all posts in the Foyer, but you chose my post to reply to, so you must have thought my post was representative of a sad and angry post. I can sure you there was not even a teensy tiny bit of sadness or anger in my post. Mocking of apologist logic, yes. Sadness and anger? None.

So since I am a good authority of the intended tone of my posts, and I'm assuming that post was what you thought was a good representation of your opinion that the Foyer is sad and angry, I am going to make a guess that you are poor at evaluating this issue.