Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[UVACoug]

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.

None of that is at all troubling if you acknowledge the secondary meaning of virtue and chastity. That is why we "mock" you. This is not that hard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[swampfrog]

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

I am befuddled by your befuddlement. It seems like an extremely simple concept. When my daughter opens her Personal Progress book to the chapter on chastity, the very first scripture given as a reference says that some women that were raped lost their chastity and virtue. That's nuts.

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.

Every scripture? Nonsense. And please spare me the patronizing "looking to be offended" line. If that verse doesn't bother you, fine. We have a difference of opinion.

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.

I am not saying it should be ignored! In the short term, an explicit clarification on the verse AND removing it as source material for chastity lessons would be great. This verse should never be used as a tool to teach chastity.

As for the long term, it would nice to see the text altered. That certainly wouldn't be the first time. They have done that many times with the BOM as new editions come out.

[Indy Coug]

When the woman touched the hem of Christ's robe... "virtue had gone out of him".

[UVACoug]

When the woman touched the hem of Christ's robe... "virtue had gone out of him".

That woman made Jesus a sinner? How dare she.

[myboynoah]

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.

swampfrog, I think you did a very good job with that post. Thank you.

[LA Ute]

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.

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.

[Moliere]

I am befuddled by your befuddlement. It seems like an extremely simple concept. When my daughter opens her Personal Progress book to the chapter on chastity, the very first scripture given as a reference says that some women that were raped lost their chastity and virtue. That's nuts.

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.

[Non Sequitur]

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.

That is it in a nutshell.

[UVACoug]

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.

I guess I'm confused. Doesn't a girl lose her virginity when she is raped? I don't see why it is upsetting to acknowledge that. Maybe I am just naive.

[LA Ute]

I come in peace.

This is the section in "Come Follow Me" related to teaching chastity to young women:

Prayerfully study these resources. How can you help the young women understand and feel the importance of chastity?

Genesis 39:7–21 (Joseph fled from sexual sin)

1 Nephi 10:21 (We must be pure to dwell with God)

Alma 39:1–13 (Sexual sin is an abomination)

Moroni 9:9 (Chastity is dear and precious)

D&C 46:33; 121:45–46 (The importance of virtue)

David A. Bednar, “We Believe in Being Chaste,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2013

Jeffrey R. Holland, “Personal Purity”

Jeffrey R. Holland, “Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 2007, 42–45

Elaine S. Dalton, “A Return to Virtue,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2008, 78–80

“Dress and Appearance,” “Sexual Purity,” For the Strength of Youth (2010), 6–8, 35–37

“Chastity,” True to the Faith (2004), 29–33

Videos: “I Choose to Be Pure,” “Chastity: What Are the Limits?” “True Confidence”

If you go to the page you'll see many embedded links to other resources as well. You've all convinced me that viewed in context, Moroni 9:9 isn't a perfect cite for teaching the principle that "chastity is dear and precious," especially when there are so many others. Jacob 2:28 is well-known: "For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women." Why not use that one instead? I would.

At the same time, I don't understand why you guys are making such a big deal out of a single scripture with an awkward context. Now, if the Come, Follow Me manual called for Moroni 9:9 to be used in support of the notion that girls should die rather than be unchaste, then I could see the problem. But you can't get that teaching out of the above lesson guide without torturing the language. What am I missing?

[STLcoug]

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

Agreed. This thread was painful to read through...

[ERCougar]

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.

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.

[ERCougar]

I come in peace.

This is the section in "Come Follow Me" related to teaching chastity to young women:



If you go to the page you'll see many embedded links to other resources as well. You've all convinced me that viewed in context, Moroni 9:9 isn't a perfect cite for teaching the principle that "chastity is dear and precious," especially when there are so many others. Jacob 2:28 is well-known: "For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women." Why not use that one instead? I would.

At the same time, I don't understand why you guys are making such a big deal out of a single scripture with an awkward context. Now, if the Come, Follow Me manual called for Moroni 9:9 to be used in support of the notion that girls should die rather than be unchaste, then I could see the problem. But you can't get that teaching out of the above lesson guide without torturing the language. What am I missing?

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.

[Katy Lied]

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?