Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Pheidippides]

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.

Excellent post. I agree with the freedom bit.

I think many of us have spent a few years angry at something or other, but that has passed for most of us I think. I can't speak for anybody but myself, but happier now than I have been in...well, I can't remember. I see that in others too.

What LA Ute is misdiagnosing as anger and sadness is frustration - or, more precisely, the frustration of trying to coexist with a church that is incredibly messed up in many ways, at least when viewed from most vantage points that don't include complete devotion. And, more evident here, the frustration that the completely or mostly devoted have absolutely no clue what we are seeing. The unstated corollary to this is that there are a lot of great things there too, else why would we still participate?

LA Ute is, of course, as believing as they come, and whether you want to call that devotion or mindless goose stepping is not important. The larger point is that he is unwilling to take anything on faith if it doesn't come
from On High. "What? Gum and licked cupcakes? Never heard it, so it must not be true and/or a problem. Where's your proof?" He is, in effect, bizarro Korihor, although we love him too much to want him stricken dumb. Most of the time, anyway.

I pick on LA because (a) it's fun and (b) we have established a pattern of crossing what little wits we have, but it shouldn't surprise anybody that the devout defend what they love, tooth and nail, even when it comes to ridiculous arguments or unsupportable positions (as people like me see it). That's not important, although we do - I do - have to learn how to coexist, at least for the time being. But the pattern I am seeing is that one day all the ridiculousness and concerns outweigh the good for people and they say, if you'll pardon the language, "fuck it, I'm out." And I have to ask myself if that's what will happen to me when/if my daughter gets the gum lesson from a well-meaning but stupid leader and I go batshit crazy on the phone after the face (because that's what will happen).

I guess what I'm saying is the more I reflect on my own childhood and the various experiences of others, the more I'm not sure I want my own kids to run the risk of being part of it, and maybe I am better off being Presbyterian or something.

[jay santos]

Oh, I know we shouldn't. But you do need to use them. Not everyone is as discerning as you and SU. For example, right now I am so confused that I can't tell whether you are angry or sad or bubbling over with joy.

On a conference call, chatting with two employees on line, following up on email, and tracking my web site clicks. checking in here from time to time. not giving it a lot of emotion one way or another. but my emotion when i made that original post had no sadness or anger in it. mocking, yes. and to be clear not mocking LDS but mocking the apologists that come up with theories like you were pushing in your post.

What part of it seemed angry?

[swampfrog]

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?

No, that wasn't me. I tend to lurk because I learn through observation, and it takes a while to get a feel for the personalities involved. Regardless of what message board you look at, often when there is some history involved many topics can no longer be discussed openly because the discussion often degenerates quickly into recycled material. Hence you never know what will be stepped into once a decision to contribute is made.

I know I said I'd bow out, but I can't help it--this is a great post. Passages on the horrors of war should not be used to teach young women about chastity. Duh.

Thanks. I agree with this, it probably shouldn't be used to teach chastity. Especially not the typical lay teacher that cannot treat the subject with the delicacy required--there may be the occasional exceptional teacher that can--it is a very, very tricky proposition to bring the subject of sexual abuse into a chastity lesson. The context of this chapter may preclude its use in anything other than understanding the depravity of what human beings are capable at their worst. This has little (if anything) to do with sexuality at all, it's about power, torture, and the corruption of a people.

That being said, a discussion of what exactly occurs to the psyche of a victim, what is indeed lost, is an important discussion for adults and older teens to have. They may never be victims themselves, but guaranteed they will at some point have their path intertwined with someone who is. In that context, the verse may have value. I'll try to be careful here--and I realize I'm reading this by private interpretation. I want to believe that in the original language, the intent was to convey the sense of loss of that person's concept of their own chastity and virtue. Not that these things were actually taken from them, but in their minds they have lost them. And that is horrible. And is worthy of the description "depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things". To be able to walk uprightly among your peers and feel confidence, trust, freedom, security, safety, and peace. Some victims do tragically place this above the value of their own lives. Understanding this sense of loss, real or not, is essential to comforting those in need comfort.

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

I'm choosing to take that as a compliment and will assume I'm not being mocked. :thumbsup:

[Jarid in Cedar]

No, I don't wonder about that one bit. But any reasonable person reading your post would think it was angry. Maybe you need to use smilies more?

I probably don't count as a reasonable person, but I read it more as sarcastic than angry.

[LA Ute]

I agree with SU. You shouldn't need to use smilies.

Oh, I know we shouldn't. But you do need to use them. Not everyone is as discerning as you and SU. For example, right now I am so confused that I can't tell whether you are angry or sad or bubbling over with joy.

[jay santos]

No, I don't wonder about that one bit. But any reasonable person reading your post would think it was angry. Maybe you need to use smilies more?

I agree with SU. You shouldn't need to use smilies.

[Indy Coug]

No, I don't wonder about that one bit. But any reasonable person reading your post would think it was angry. Maybe you need to use smilies more?

Just start talking fondly of Wendell Beck.

[LA Ute]

So you're doubling down that my post was angry. Interesting. And you wonder why I'm telling you that you are not a good judge of the overall tone of the Foyer?

No, I don't wonder about that one bit. But any reasonable person reading your post would think it was angry. Maybe you need to use smilies more?

[jay santos]

If it wasn't for places like The Foyer I wouldn't be able to see that highly educated people like ERCougar and Jay Santos interpret scripture based on such great logicale sense to have me see the light of my indoctrination of Mormonism. Our family would have been much better of being taught by well educated Men and women than by the BofM and Mormon prophets. Thanks guys!

ftr, I also teach my family from the BoM and words of Mormon prophets.

[jay santos]

An excellent parry. It wasn't your post that I saw as sad. It did look a little angry:



I guess I am just not good at detecting sunshine and puppies.

So you're doubling down that my post was angry. Interesting. And you wonder why I'm telling you that you are not a good judge of the overall tone of the Foyer?

[Eddie]

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.

Is your wife's wedding ring precious? Was it a wonderful thing when you gave it to her? Would it have been as wonderful if you had bought 50,000 of them and passed one out to every woman you came into contact with before marrying her...and maybe a few after?

I agree that sex ed needs to be more along the lines of what you describe - sex is a wonderful thing under the right circumstances. Or not so wonderful under other circumstances. Even if my child were not LDS and were not determined to marry in the temple or only be intimate with someone to whom they are married, I feel like it is precious and should be guarded. It is an intimate experience to be had with someone special to you, and not something that takes place on a whim with whoever you happen to be with at the time.

How many young women out there suffer from emotional trauma because they sleep with some guy who they think loves them, only to have him disappear when the conquest is over?

So what is the most important thing for them to learn? Are they more likely to regret having sex or not having sex? I agree that immature teens don't always grasp the depth of the concepts being discussed. But the concepts are deep - I don't know that they can be completely simplified.

I'm probably going to regret this. I'd rather just post pictures and look at others' contributions in the photograpy thread.

I'm sticking with the Moroni 9:9 thing mostly. Some context for me, I'll assume there was some dude named Moroni who was actually having to transcribe history into metal plates. His main purpose in this chapter seems to be the describing the wicked state of two peoples at war with one another. It's not to provide doctrinal insight. (It's unfortunate that Mormondom seems to be fraught with "authorities" and/or "teachers" attempting to pull doctrinal insight from places where it was never intended.) Verses 8 through 10 convey some of the most depraved behaviors in scripture that I'm aware of. It was Moroni's task to convey the level to which both peoples had sunk using as few words as possible. I don't think this thread has legs if everything from the last comma on is simply removed from verse 9.

Then the reader can contemplate what these daughters were deprived of. Something is taken from rape victims. Call it loss of innocence or freedom. Call it humiliation, loss of self-esteem. Reduction of a human being to an object to be used and cast out (and in this case tortured and consumed). Debasing of one of the greatest acts of human affection. (There's at least some truth to it being the "consummation" of a marriage. It enhances a bond, deepens a commitment.) Essays and books have been written on the issue. It's complex. The feelings of emptiness, unwarranted guilt, and helplessness--did these feelings not take the place of fullness, peace, and confidence? Things that were taken? Can these things be fully and truly restored? Can a victim actually ever be the same? I don't know, maybe Elizabeth Smart knows. There are physical elements, mental elements, spiritual elements, social elements. Recovery is long and painful.

I don't believe Moroni wasn't trying to fully describe what the effect is though he did try to at least touch it briefly, I wish I knew the original language and could read the original text. I get the feeling it was something important to him, for which he felt deep sorrow.

Rape is a heinous violation of someone's rights. It wouldn't be unless it actually deprives somebody of something important. Maybe in Moroni's language there were words that described the loss adequately, maybe it cannot be described in any language. In the end, I'm OK with loss of "virtue"--as there are definitions of that word that fit the loss. Loss of power, as it is at least emotionally cripling. The use of the word "chastity" I have a harder time with. I'm hoping it was intended to imply the loss of freedom of choice in sexual encounters, but even then I'm not sure.

I wonder if Moroni struggled with his phrasing. I know I would.

Thanks for posting. Best comment of the entire thread.

[LA Ute]

lol. Nobody is a more dedicated martyr than LAU.

I am far too modest to accept such praise.

But now that you mention it, I think I have been very faithful in that role here. My greatest source of suffering is that so few people in The Foyer appreciate how much you all need me. Nevertheless, I shall press on. With faith in every footstep.

[Jarid in Cedar]

If it wasn't for places like The Foyer I wouldn't be able to see that highly educated people like ERCougar and Jay Santos interpret scripture based on such great logicale sense to have me see the light of my indoctrination of Mormonism. Our family would have been much better of being taught by well educated Men and women than by the BofM and Mormon prophets. Thanks guys!

That's good. You have taken your first step into a larger world

[Jeff Lebowski]

lol. Nobody is a more dedicated martyr than LAU.

[LA Ute]

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.

An excellent parry. It wasn't your post that I saw as sad. It did look a little angry:

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.

I guess I am just not good at detecting sunshine and puppies.