Elizabeth Smart: New Movie, New Baby

[Third Hour]

When 14-year-old harp prodigy Elizabeth Smart was taken from her home in 2002, news outlets everywhere went berserk. After 9 months of rape and starvation at the hands of a religious fanatic, Smart was finally discovered alive: a statistical miracle. Today, Smart is using her story to inspire girls everywhere. Smart has spoken out against pornography, decried the condemning nature of chastity lessons, and works with organizations like Fight Like Girls, aimed at empowering women fighting against anxiety, infertility, eating disorders, and so-forth. In 2013, Smart published her personal memoir, "My Story." Lifetime recently announced the production of an Elizabeth Smart movie, from her own perspective. “‘I am Elizabeth Smart,’ the officially authorized flick about the real-life Elizabeth Smart, will feature Smart narrating the story of how she was snatched at age 14," according to TV Guide. "... The film starts production in Vancouver in May.” Unlike CBS's 2003 version of her story, told from her parents' perspective, Lifetime's movie will be Smart's own account of the incident. Smart will also narrate and exec...

View the full article

[Guest]

What does this mean?

Quote

decried the condemning nature of chastity lessons

 

[NeuroTypical]

This is the linked story.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Elizabeth-Smart-Shares-How-Chastity-Lessons-in-Our-Culture-Can-Have-Harmful-Lasting-Effects/s/83107

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

My initial reaction was similar to NT's, but on thoughtful reflection, I agree with Elizabeth Smart-- with this proviso: I agree with exactly what Elizabeth Smart said.

I do not agree with the conclusion that many, particularly those with an axe to grind, will draw: That the Church is somehow wrong or evil or outdated for teaching that sex is to be engaged in between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and not in any other way. This conclusion is not what Smart said, nor (I believe) is it even implicit in her words. It is the wicked, perverted teachings of those with an evil agenda.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Vort

[zil]

Did you read the linked article?

[Vort]

Just now, zil said:

Did you read the linked article?

Me? Yes.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Me? Yes.

Sorry, we overlapped (ETA: I meant Carb and NT).  And I probably wasn't clear enough, the one that linked off MormonHub and over to LDSLiving, explaining the "condemning nature of chastity lessons".

Edited April 19, 2017 by zil

[Vort]

Just now, zil said:

Sorry, we overlapped.  And I probably wasn't clear enough, the one that linked off MormonHub and over to LDSLiving, explaining the "condemning nature of chastity lessons".

When chastity lessons say, "Marriage is the one and only venue in which sex may righteously be exercised in chastity -- no exceptions," then those are true lessons teaching principles vital to us all. We and our children should and must learn those lessons, and then live by them.

When chastity lessons say, "Young women, you are a stick of gum, and when you have sex, the boy you have sex with chews you up, and no other boy is going to want prechewed gum! Yuck!", or "Young women, you are a wooden board, and when you have sex, the boy drives a nail through you [cringeworthy imagery, that], so even when you repent of your fornication and the nail gets pulled out, you'll still always have a hole in your soul where the boy drove his nail right through you!", or other untrue and inappropriate imagery, then those are false lessons that we ought not teach our children (of either sex).

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

When chastity lessons say, "Marriage is the one and only venue in which sex may righteously be exercised in chastity -- no exceptions," then those are true lessons teaching principles vital to us all. We and our children should and must learn those lessons, and then live by them.

When chastity lessons say, "Young women, you are a stick of gum, and when you have sex, the boy you have sex with chews you up, and no other boy is going to want prechewed gum! Yuck!", or "Young women, you are a wooden board, and when you have sex, the boy drives a nail through you [cringeworthy imagery, that], so even when you repent of your fornication and the nail gets pulled out, you'll still always have a hole in your soul where the boy drove his nail right through you!", or other untrue and inappropriate imagery, then those are false lessons that we ought not teach our children (of either sex).

Exactly.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

When chastity lessons say, "Marriage is the one and only venue in which sex may righteously be exercised in chastity -- no exceptions," then those are true lessons teaching principles vital to us all. We and our children should and must learn those lessons, and then live by them.

When chastity lessons say, "Young women, you are a stick of gum, and when you have sex, the boy you have sex with chews you up, and no other boy is going to want prechewed gum! Yuck!", or "Young women, you are a wooden board, and when you have sex, the boy drives a nail through you [cringeworthy imagery, that], so even when you repent of your fornication and the nail gets pulled out, you'll still always have a hole in your soul where the boy drove his nail right through you!", or other untrue and inappropriate imagery, then those are false lessons that we ought not teach our children (of either sex).

And, as long as we're there...  I have no personal experience with this, but I have heard that some girls come away from the bad lessons believing that even if they do everything right and wait until marriage, they still end up chewed up and with holes in them - they equate that negative imagery with sex in any context.  Last thing we want.  (And the boy / man ends up what?  Needing to go to the hardware store?  It's just lousy teaching all the way around.)

[person0]

One of my favorite tools to teach and understand the principles of chastity in their accurate and true context is the talk by Jeffrey R. Holland:  Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments

Memorable moments from the talk:

Quote

Such an act of love between a man and a woman is--or certainly was ordained to be--a symbol of total union: union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything. . .

such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess . . . 

Our sexuality has been animalized, stripped of the intricacy of feeling with which human beings have endowed it, leaving us to contemplate only the act. . . 

human intimacy is a sacrament, a very special kind of symbol . . .

These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God's will, our spirit with his spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge his divinity, but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves.

I know of no one who would, for example, rush into the middle of a sacramental service, grab the linen from the tables, throw the bread the full length of the room, tip the water trays onto the floor, and laughingly retreat from the building to await an opportunity to do the same thing at another worship service the next Sunday. . .Sexual union is also, in its own profound way, a very real sacrament of the highest order, a union not only of a man and a woman but very much the union of that man and woman with God.

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by person0

[Guest]

On 4/19/2017 at 4:42 PM, NeuroTypical said:

This is the linked story.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Elizabeth-Smart-Shares-How-Chastity-Lessons-in-Our-Culture-Can-Have-Harmful-Lasting-Effects/s/83107

I was kinda hoping it was along those lines.  But the Hub article didn't go into it at all.  So I couldn't tell.  I agree with Vort that the simple statement as shown in the Hub article could VERY easily be taken to mean something it doesn't.

[estradling75]

Indeed...  While Elizabeth Smart pointed out the damage that can be done from the incorrect teaching of the Doctrine... She points out that it was the correct teaching of the Doctrine is what helped her get through her trial and see past the incorrect teachings... The latter part is commonly omitted.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/19/2017 at 3:58 PM, Vort said:

My initial reaction was similar to NT's, but on thoughtful reflection, I agree with Elizabeth Smart-- with this proviso: I agree with exactly what Elizabeth Smart said.

I do not agree with the conclusion that many, particularly those with an axe to grind, will draw: That the Church is somehow wrong or evil or outdated for teaching that sex is to be engaged in between a man and a woman who are married to each other, and not in any other way. This conclusion is not what Smart said, nor (I believe) is it even implicit in her words. It is the wicked, perverted teachings of those with an evil agenda.

You agree with statements like this?:

"But I also think there's another side of [faith] that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage."

...and find nothing implicit in statements like that?

I recall reading what she said when this stuff hit the news. I get the general point - the way some lessons are taught is problematic. But as you point out the conclusions are problematic. The way she said it, imo, allowed for those conclusions. And that is a problem.

I also very much struggle with the idea of blaming anyone for the horrors of rape except rapists.

A young child is too immature, of course, to understand the complexities of chastity. And then that child is raped and it's the chastity lesson's fault the child is traumatized? Really?

So if the lessons were taught better all of a sudden someone being raped would no longer be psychologically damaged by it? No more shame feelings? Because of the lessons? Hogwash. Are we meant to believe that those outside the church who get raped don't experience the same sorts of trauma just with different specific thoughts?

So, yes, I agree that it would be wise to teach certain lessons better. Teaching virtue as the precious thing instead of the physical act of sex. But I still have a problem with the message and the way it was presented.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You agree with statements like this?:

"But I also think there's another side of [faith] that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage."

...and find nothing implicit in statements like that?

I think the wording is unfortunate. But in context, I think the statement is saying (not too clearly), "Religions that stress the sanctity of sex and its use only in marriage seem to be especially vulnerable to this sort of teaching." I expect that is true, since what other type of religion would ever think to come up with such analogies?

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You agree with statements like this?:

"But I also think there's another side of [faith] that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage."

...and find nothing implicit in statements like that?

I recall reading what she said when this stuff hit the news. I get the general point - the way some lessons are taught is problematic. But as you point out the conclusions are problematic. The way she said it, imo, allowed for those conclusions. And that is a problem.

I also very much struggle with the idea of blaming anyone for the horrors of rape except rapists.

A young child is too immature, of course, to understand the complexities of chastity. And then that child is raped and it's the chastity lesson's fault the child is traumatized? Really?

So if the lessons were taught better all of a sudden someone being raped would no longer be psychologically damaged by it? No more shame feelings? Because of the lessons? Hogwash. Are we meant to believe that those outside the church who get raped don't experience the same sorts of trauma just with different specific thoughts?

So, yes, I agree that it would be wise to teach certain lessons better. Teaching virtue as the precious thing instead of the physical act of sex. But I still have a problem with the message and the way it was presented.

Tsk tsk tsk.  You're engaging in Fake News.

If you're going to present a quote, don't mangle it by only taking half of it so that you can present something out of context to make your point.

Here's the full quote:

"But I also think there's another side of it that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage... It's so stressed that, girls in particular, tie their worth to their virginity, or, for lack of a better word, purity."

This is not just a rape issue.  This is a repentance issue.  A convert issue, etc. etc. etc.  The same exact thing people with sleeve tattoos to a lesser extent have to go through when they end up joining the Church.

Just like a tattoo, having lost your virginity is not something you can take back regardless of how much you repent of it.  Therefore, that kind of teaching becomes completely inapplicable to young women who have lost their virginity regardless of how they lost it.

Edited April 21, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Tsk tsk tsk.  You're engaging in Fake News.

If you're going to present a quote, don't mangle it by only taking half of it so that you can present something out of context to make your point.

Here's the full quote:

"But I also think there's another side of it that can be potentially very harmful, especially when a lot of religions teach that sexual relations are meant for marriage... It's so stressed that, girls in particular, tie their worth to their virginity, or, for lack of a better word, purity."

This is not just a rape issue.  This is a repentance issue.  A convert issue, etc. etc. etc.  The same exact thing people with sleeve tattoos to a lesser extent have to go through when they end up joining the Church.

Just like a tattoo, having lost your virginity is not something you can take back regardless of how much you repent of it.  Therefore, that kind of teaching becomes completely inapplicable to young women who have lost their virginity regardless of how they lost it.

Haha. Nice try.

I've read the stuff, watched the talks, etc. of Elizabeth Smart. I assure you, I have a problem with her message, not taking things out of context. Even the stuff you added...really...so we're attacking the idea of purity for lack of a better word? Not to mention the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater feeling to it all. Whereas I agree that wasn't the intent, her message makes it all to easy for some to take it that way.

Edited April 21, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha. Nice try.

I've read the stuff, watched the talks, etc. of Elizabeth Smart. I assure you, I have a problem with her message, not taking things out of context. Even the stuff you added...really...so we're attacking the idea of purity for lack of a better word? Not to mention the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater feeling to it all. Whereas I agree that wasn't the intent, her message makes it all to easy for some to take it that way.

So, you're saying that Elizabeth Smart and I are attacking the idea of purity because we point out that it is not applicable to some of us?  Mentioning the people that the purity lesson does not apply to is somehow interpreted as demanding that they stop teaching purity?  And because there are some who would take it that way that we somehow not say anything about it?

Sure, you can have a problem with her message.  You can disagree with everything she says.  Free country.  Just don't try to paint what she said in a manner that puts it out of context.  It's not honest.

[Just_A_Guy]

Something that often causes angst in the Church is that we're very good about saying "don't do x"; but we don't really have the discussion of "but if you do x anyways, then consider y and z".  Rather, we just refer folks who perpetrate x to their bishops; because we are afraid that talking about y and z might be seen as granting implicit permission to go ahead and do the forbidden x.  This occurred to me in @Lostboy289's recent thread--we are very good about telling preemies not to get into relationships; but not so good about outlining how preemies may honorably extricate themselves from the relationships they have foolishly entered anyways.

In a more topical note:  trauma victims are inevitably going to develop a sort of "bunker mentality" whereby they perceive slights and attacks in conduct that the unwounded would view as relatively innocuous.  I can understand the problems with analogies like "chewed gum", etc; but before throwing them out wholesale I do have a few questions:  We know that all analogies break down at a certain level of scrutiny; but these analogies-- do they work?  Do they successfully persuade significant numbers of youth to remain chaste?  Will alternate analogies be as effective?  If not, can we quantify that?  Is it worth ten or fifteen thousand youth losing their chastity so that one or two thousand youth don't excessively beat themselves up after a sexual assault?

These are hard questions, and I'm glad they're above my pay grade.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think the wording is unfortunate. 

Which is probably the crux of my problem with it all.

In today's environment one should be very, very, very careful about attacking chastity. Very careful. There are too many souls at stake. What's being traded here, imo, is the feelings of those who are raped or abused (which is a problem, but as I've said, the blame should go to the rapists) for the potential loss of souls to immorality because of a message that allows justifications in thought that should not be justified.

We are in a war for people's eternal souls, not for keeping everyone from feeling bad.

Obviously the unneeded and unjustified shame that one who gets raped or abused goes through should be minimized as much as possible -- but not at the expense of eternal salvation for others who take the easy-to-take wrong message out of the good intent. A message that kept the eternal perspective as it's primary goal but then carefully addressed some improvements would be fine. A message that casts aside dangers to eternal welfare in favor of people not feeling bad is a problem.

It fits right in with the movement right now that people not feeling bad is the most important thing, and that anything that makes others feel bad is wrong. Whereas that is sometimes true, it is not exclusively true or even, from an eternal perspective, true at all except wherein those feelings lead someone to lose salvation. 

Teaching a bunch of vulnerable young girls that if they lose their virginity prior to marriage it's okay strikes me as an extremely dangerous message.

I don't support the chewed up gum or nails in a board lessons. But that's because they deny the eternal truths like being able to have our garments, though as red as blood, made white as snow. Truth should be taught and those lessons are not truth. But the implication that teaching girls that purity should not be valued so they don't feel bad is a better way...that is also not truth.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, you're saying that Elizabeth Smart and I are attacking the idea of purity because we point out that it is not applicable to some of us?  Mentioning the people that the purity lesson does not apply to is somehow interpreted as demanding that they stop teaching purity?  And because there are some who would take it that way that we somehow not say anything about it?

Sure, you can have a problem with her message.  You can disagree with everything she says.  Free country.  Just don't try to paint what she said in a manner that puts it out of context.  It's not honest.

Painting my views as dishonest is, by the same token, theoretically no more honest. It's a great ploy to say that someone who sees things differently than you is dishonest. Let's throw that back and forth at each other all day and see what kind of good it does. I have no respect for that kind of tactic though.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we are very good about telling preemies not to get into relationships; but not so good about outlining how preemies may honorably extricate themselves from the relationships they have foolishly entered anyways.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. I think the preemies (I'm not sure what that word means) just don't like the message.

[Vort]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

preemies (I'm not sure what that word means)

The alternative is "immies", but that just doesn't sound right.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not entirely sure that's true. I think the preemies (I'm not sure what that word means) just don't like the message.

Sorry--"pre-missionaries".

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Painting my views as dishonest is, by the same token, theoretically no more honest. It's a great ploy to say that someone who sees things differently than you is dishonest. Let's throw that back and forth at each other all day and see what kind of good it does. I have no respect for that kind of tactic though.

No.  Someone who puts Elizabeth Smarts quote out of context THEN expresses his disagreement with the out-of-context quote is dishonest.  It does not have to be done intentionally.

Just calling you out on it so you can correct yourself.  Or not.