Just wanted to give '71 another reason to complain about the Honor Code

[falafel]

And isn't it also taught in the Book of Mormon?

*Moroni 9:9 "For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—"

Don't forget the next verse:

Moroni 9:10 "And it would have been better for them had they been not born at all, thus their virtue preserved, like unto a fresh stick of juicy fruit."

[Topper]

And isn't it also taught in the Book of Mormon?

*Moroni 9:9 "For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—"

It sounds as if the deflowered Nephites somehow lost their virtue by being raped. Strange idea.

[Topper]

Don't forget the next verse:

Moroni 9:10 "And it would have been better for them had they been not born at all, thus their virtue preserved, like unto a fresh stick of juicy fruit."

But the idea that a woman has lost virtue because somebody else raped them is weird.

[taekwondave]

Don't forget the next verse:

Moroni 9:10 "And it would have been better for them had they been not born at all, thus their virtue preserved, like unto a fresh stick of juicy fruit."

I actually did laugh out loud at that. That was funny.

[falafel]

But the idea that a woman has lost virtue because somebody else raped them is weird.

Ain't nobody arguing that point.

[taekwondave]

But the idea that a woman has lost virtue because somebody else raped them is weird.

I think you're agreeing with me...but I'm not sure.

[taekwondave]

Ain't nobody arguing that point.

I think the point that was argued was that the church should be safe from criticism for this chewing gum teaching if they don't come out specifically and counsel against it. I was arguing that this teaching is prevalent enough and stems directly enough from their own scriptures and teachings that they deserve no such safeguard. If in fact they are counseling people not to use that analogy anymore, good for them. But until then I think it's fine to suggest that they do.

[old_gregg]

I think the point that was argued was that the church should be safe from criticism for this chewing gum teaching if they don't come out specifically and counsel against it. I was arguing that this teaching is prevalent enough and stems directly enough from their own scriptures and teachings that they deserve no such safeguard. If in fact they are counseling people not to use that analogy anymore, good for them. But until then I think it's fine to suggest that they do.

u r pretty smart bro and u make some good points

[Eddie]

I think the point that was argued was that the church should be safe from criticism for this chewing gum teaching if they don't come out specifically and counsel against it. I was arguing that this teaching is prevalent enough and stems directly enough from their own scriptures and teachings that they deserve no such safeguard. If in fact they are counseling people not to use that analogy anymore, good for them. But until then I think it's fine to suggest that they do.

I think it's silly for the church to make a blanket statement as a whole about any dumb analogy that's been used in the past. Simply because while you might be saying "don't do this", you just know that someone is going to pick it up, file it away in their brain somewhere, and then pull it out and use it years later thinking it was a good analogy instead of a "don't use this" analogy. Plus - some people are just dumb.

On the other hand - I think that an ongoing and continual reinforcement of doctrine/principles is the way to go. Where perhaps the church teaches that sexual purity is important - while reinforcing that no one can take your purity from you without your consent. And perhaps even reinforcing the concept of the atonement making the sinner whole - as if the sin had never happened. Obviously I think you've got to be careful so that all of the high school kids aren't thinking they can try this sex thing out and then just repent later. That's not what we're going for either. But can we allow people to improve themselves?

Kind of changing topics a little now, and I know you aren't into the LDS thing anymore - but you should go read Sister Bingham's talk from the Women's session of conference. I think you'd like it: https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...-home?lang=eng

[Moliere]

Has the church actually come out and instructed members not to use such an analogy? Because if not, then I definitely would continue blaming the church for that.

I wonder if it was ever in the manual or other similar publication. I really have no idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

I think the point that was argued was that the church should be safe from criticism for this chewing gum teaching if they don't come out specifically and counsel against it. I was arguing that this teaching is prevalent enough and stems directly enough from their own scriptures and teachings that they deserve no such safeguard. If in fact they are counseling people not to use that analogy anymore, good for them. But until then I think it's fine to suggest that they do.

The church teaches the perfect atonement, which means we are forgiven and not even god remembers our sins anymore. That alone flies in the face of the chewing gum analogy.

Of course, maybe that isn't direct enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Katy Lied]

I just searched LDS.org and found nothing relating chastity to chewing gum. So you want the Brethren to repudiate something they never said? I'm willing to bet that some YW leader came up with that analogy, just like the wilted rose and the licked cupcake.

What the activists want is the deletion of part of Moroni 9:9, already mentioned above.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One of my pet peeves is when people teach that women should be modest to help the men stay under control. Rubbish.

I was happy to find this quote recently from Elder Holland:

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."

From a talk in 1988!

http://www.familylifeeducation.org/g...roup/Souls.htm

[Topper]

I think you're agreeing with me...but I'm not sure.

I hate the chewing gum analogy which I heard in the 70s by my bishop and priest leaders. I also didn't know how one could rob somebody of virtue. Virtue is a personal attribute.

[Northwestcoug]

One of my pet peeves is when people teach that women should be modest to help the men stay under control. Rubbish.

I was happy to find this quote recently from Elder Holland:



From a talk in 1988!

http://www.familylifeeducation.org/g...roup/Souls.htm

Paging Elder Dallin "walking pornography" Oaks...