For Mormons and Exmormons: Object Lessons in Church

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:15 am

I grew up in the Midwest, so not in Utah for the lovely chastity object lesson. I am nearing 40 so hopefully things have changed since then. I don't think that young, eager to be good young women are going to think critically about those lessons until much, much later if ever. I know I never did question them at all. I was a married woman in my 30's before I started thinking back to these things, trying to find the genesis of certain issues. And really who is going to feel more dirty in these lessons. The girl who has petted with her first love or the girl who's uncle is sexually abusing her?

Loap, I can't seem to take any offense to anything you say due to your avatar.

I also read all of SilentKid's posts in a Norm McDonald voice.

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:47 am

It's really interesting to watch people jump all over KimberlyAnn. I honestly don't know what church these guys belong to. I suspect it's just a matter of circling the wagons, but as alter idem pointed out, if people actually listened instead of denied, maybe, just maybe disturbing things like this might not happen again.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:52 am

I still have a hard time understanding why the lesson is offensive.

Post by **_MishMagnet** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:10 am

Gazelam wrote:I still have a hard time understanding why the lesson is offensive.

Wow, let me get out my surprised look. To be honest you come accross as very unsympathetic to women in general so why would you care about some young woman who's been sexually abused and is now objectified as a sticky lifesaver or a dirty wedding cake? Since anywhere from 20-60% of women have been sexually abused as children this hurts many. Do you expect a child to separate what is and is not proper doctrine? No, she only knows that she hates herself already and now nobody is going to want to love her either. According to you active Mormons it's offensive because it's not even accurate. You can't remove the saliva from a cupcake. You can't make a Lifesaver new again. You can't get the dirt off a wedding cake. It's done, it's spoiled, it's trash. Nothing will ever again make it the way it was. Is that your God?

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:25 am

MishMagnet wrote:
Loap, I can't seem to take any offense to anything you say due to your avatar.

!

Post by **_LifeOnaPlate** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:26 am

MishMagnet wrote:
Gazelam wrote:I still have a hard time understanding why the lesson is offensive.

Wow, let me get out my surprised look. To be honest you come accross as very unsympathetic to women in general so why would you care about some young woman who's been sexually abused and is now objectified as a sticky lifesaver or a dirty wedding cake? Since anywhere from 20-60% of women have been sexually abused as children this hurts many. Do you expect a child to separate what is and is not proper doctrine? No, she only knows that she hates herself already and now nobody is going to want to love her either. According to you active Mormons it's offensive because it's not even accurate. You can't remove the saliva from a cupcake. You can't make a Lifesaver new again. You can't get the dirt off a wedding cake. It's done, it's spoiled, it's trash. Nothing will ever again make it the way it was. Is that your God?

It's offensive to me on several levels. You have highlighted a few.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:29 am

Mish,

Theres a difference between spiritual impurity that comes from willful disobedience, and physical impourity that comes from having virtue stolen. I don't think this lesson could apply to molestation and/or rape.

But I do see how a young mind could possibly confuse the two.

Post by **_Runtu** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:32 am

Gazelam wrote:Mish,

Theres a difference between spiritual impurity that comes from willful disobedience, and physical impourity that comes from having virtue stolen. I don't think this lesson could apply to molestation and/or rape.

But I do see how a young mind could possibly confuse the two.

Even if it's willful, don't you see how damaging it is to people? It suggests that one can't truly ever be clean or worthy once one sins. That's a horrible lesson and one that has no place in a church that teaches repentance.

Post by **_Zoidberg** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:36 am

Gazelam wrote:Mish,

Theres a difference between spiritual impurity that comes from willful disobedience, and physical impourity that comes from having virtue stolen. I don't think this lesson could apply to molestation and/or rape.

But I do see how a young mind could possibly confuse the two.

I think it's sad that some people still use the words "virtue" and "hymen" as synonyms.

Let me explain something to you. The cupcake/gum lesson does not incorporate repentance. Once a cupcake is licked, it stays licked. So the only logical conclusion is that it refers to virginity.

Post by **_guy sajer** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:54 am

truth dancer wrote:Sometimes I feel like I went to a completely different church than some apologists. (sigh)

I heard these sorts of lessons over and over and over.

It was a mantra.

I know three women who were x-ed after a rape....Their virginity was destroyed so they were not worthy to be a member.

Thankfully I know of no consequences/punishments like this today but to pretend that this idea/teaching of the "licked cupcake" didn't exist is quite erroneous.

~dancer~

Apologists (well, really lots of people in all sorts of contexts, but they're not the topic here) like to generalize from a sample set of 1. If THEY'VE never seen or heard these things, why they just must not have happened anywhere, and anybody who says otherwise clearly is wrong. The fact that thousands of other people all claim to have seen and heard said things is immediately dismissed as product of post-Mo anger or bitterness, which has obviously clouded their perceptions (or something like that).

It's a bit like the person living in a totalitarian State (I know, somewhat extreme example, but it drives home the point) who has never herself been carted off to prison or who has never had a family member of acquaintance carted off to prison and who therefore concludes that the State doesn't arbitrarily cart people off to prison, despite the fact that thousands upon thousands of other people within the country have been off to prison. When the person hears of these tales, she dismisses them as fainciful, because it has not happened to her or anyone else she knows. She attributes the tales to the hatred and bitterness of the State's enemies who will either lie or grossly distort innocent events just to make the State look bad.