Virtue and Moroni 9:9

In the context of its inclusion as a value the Young Women are encouraged to develop, is virtue innate, or can it be taken away from a person by force?

If a Young Woman has had her virtue taken away from her via sexual assault or abuse, is there any way she can regain it?

My two comments on the BCC thread and one I liked by someone named Loursat:

Me:

Honestly, I don’t look to the BOM people as an example of how to treat women in general. They were a fallen people. Even thought Moroni’s got prophetic standing, he was surrounded by this terrible culture. What are the odds that his views weren’t tainted by such? Women are generally treated pretty badly throughout the book, particularly in sexual matters. Putting forth their “fair daughters” to protect themselves (“Here, rape my child rather than attacking me!” Who thinks like that??), cheating on them with multiple wives and concubines, mostly ignoring the existence of women (even Nephi doesn’t name any women but his mother), raping and murdering them. The Book of Mormon is no place for women.

I’ve always assumed that “virtue” in this verse meant “innocence” rather than “hymen.” Although that was when I was a YW (this horrible verse wasn’t held up as a standard for us in my day). Unfortunately, after I read Miracle of Forgiveness and was instructed that it would be better for me to be dead than raped, it dawned on me that my reading might be too generous.

Loursat:

Like Angela, I have always wanted to read “virtue” in this verse to mean something like “innocence”; i.e., rapists robbed women of their innocence. But that won’t really do. “Virtue” refers to a positive character trait—a strength that is earned and developed by correct moral choices. Innocence is not a virtue; it is the condition of a person who has not yet acquired either virtue or vice. Similarly, if chastity is a virtue, then chastity must mean something more than the passive state of virginity; to be a virtue, chastity must involve the exercise of moral choice and the building of moral character. Chastity, understood as a virtue, cannot be violated without a woman’s consent. That is to say, a woman who has been raped remains chaste.

I’m not yet persuaded by any of the attempts in this thread to interpret the verse in a way that is consistent with our current understanding of women’s moral autonomy.

Me:

Steve, the BOM is particularly inhospitable to women. The New Testament fares quite well, actually. It is downright progressive toward women, particularly in context of its day. The Old Testament is a mixed bag with several bright spots for women: compared to wisdom, several women in positive leadership roles, women feature as real human beings in many OT stories.

Loursat, well said. I’m forced to conclude that “virtue” is a 19th century thoughtless use of the word, not linked to noble or ignoble Roman ideals (sorry, Jason). It’s an imprecise and thoughtless shortcut for virginity which is in fact NOT better to retain than to be killed and eaten, but in this case, it doesn’t even result in them avoiding being murdered. If the verse were saying that it’s adding insult to injury, that makes a little more more sense, but in fact, he goes off on some diatribe about them losing “virtue.” They didn’t become prostitutes for crying out loud. They were murdered. What more do you have to lose when you are going to be killed and eaten? So they are violated, killed, then eaten. The killing is also a violation. So is the eating. Shall we blame them for being too difficult or easy to kill? For tasting too salty?

The reason I said it is important to focus on the words used is precisely what Hawk highlighted.

The root meaning of “virtue” is “strength” – so a “virtuous woman” in the Bible literally means a “strong woman”.

In the Book of Mormon passage, chastity and virtue are listed as two distinct and different things. Thus, it makes much more sense to treat them as two different things than as one thing (virtue just being another way to say chastity), even if our modern culture has lost the actual, root menaing of virtue. If we read the passage as written, it is the loss of BOTH chastity AND virtue (purity and strength) that is described as most egregious – which corresponds to Hawk’s comment about losing the ability/power/strength to choose (which is, in Mormon-speak, having their their agency taken away) and then being violated in the worst ways imaginable.

I think this lesson, as disgusting as the story is, is an opportunity to teach the young women what virtue really means and to tell them directly that being virtuous means being strong – to help them understand that being chaste and being virtuous are completely different things.

Finally, great comments from BCC.

But even if virtue has nothing to do with sexual purity, isn’t it an innate characteristic that can’t be taken away by force?

On the other hand, if virtue CAN be taken from young women by force, what are we teaching them about how to prevent this (self defense classes, for example)?

Simply telling young women to develop a characteristic, that anyone can deprive them of st any time, doesn’t really seem helpful. The other YW values are all intrinsic properties. Nobody can take your faith away from you, for example, or your integrity.

I was going to refrain from commenting on this topic, but I feel compelled to address this particular part. Using Ray’s definition of virtue, I think it can be taken. Perhaps not the total inner virtue, but I’ve known many (men and women) who feel powerless over some aspect of what’s happening or has happened to them. Battered women are the epitome of that idea – they often don;t leave because they feel powerless to do so, have nowhere to go, no job skills, etc. So I think in that sense virtue can be taken, and it fits with the story in Moroni 9 (which is actually Mormon writing to Moroni in that chapter) – those girls were held prisoner when they were raped and tortured and were powerless to change it. Unfortunately a few of us trying to change the perceived definition of virtue is not going to change it for the church as a whole.

FWIW my only daughter is 25 and inactive. During her teen/YW years I was inactive and I don’t know exactly what was taught to her at church regarding chastity or this scripture. She’s very smart (a doctoral student) and I would guess she has been able to figure this out on her own – but I also recognize that some of her biggest issues are with how modesty, morality, and chastity are taught in the church (and I don’t disagree with her). My own thoughts relating to this are that I do not believe sexual abuse or assault takes away from chastity/purity because the person does not choose those things and I do not believe Moroni 9 should be used to teach sexual purity – it’s a horrible example.

If ‘virtue’ does mean ‘consent’ – and I agree that it makes sense in the context of that verse – then it doesn’t make sense to encourage young women to develop it as a personality trait. It’s not something that can be acquired by prayer and scripture study.

If rape causes a Young Woman to have her virtue taken from her, what are we doing to protect Young Women from rape and sexual abuse? We don’t teach self defense or body safety, for example, and we don’t require YW leaders to take youth protection training like the BSA does.

Basically, what I am saying is that however you define virtue, it raises questions with regards to how we teach it to Young Women.

I didn’t mean to say virtue means consent – or agency or choice – directly. I apologize if it sounded like those words would show up in a dictionary definition. I said virtue originally meant strength or power – or authority, in one application. (“by virtue of” means “as authorized”, essentially).

The dictionary definitions to which I am referring derive from the use of “vir” – which is associated with “manliness” (as in “virile”) and its implication of strength or power. The most common definition from old times is “moral excellence” – and nearly all of those references to “the virtues” dealt with having the fortitude/strength to exercise control of one’s actions (in Mormon-speak, to exercise one’s agency properly by resisting temptation and sin). Thus, being virtuous originally meant being in control of one’s self – of being strong – of bridling passions – of resisting evil. In that light, one common dictionary definition is “effective force; power or potency”.

What I am saying is that having one’s virtue stolen or taken away, in the original sense, meant losing the power, strength, control to resist evil – which is exactly what happened to the young women in the story. Also, again, there are TWO things listed as being lost: virtue AND chastity. It makes a lot more sense, linguistically, if they are different things – and they are in the original meanings that would have been in force at the time the story is said to have happened.

If you want an interesting exercise in this, with a radically different setting and passage, look at Proverbs 31:10-31. (“Who can find a virtuous woman . . .”) The first verse gets quoted all the time, but doing so robs the passage of the entire picture it paints – of virtuous meaning strong, independent, entrepreneurial, wise, hard-working, charitable, efficient, etc. Verse 25 even uses the word “strength” to describe her. The last verse says her works will speak for themselves at the gate.

I know this is not how we talk about and teach of virtue now. I know the YW value is a shell of what it should be. This passage, however, is not set in our day; it is set in a time period when virtue was described as in Proverbs. I would love the chance to teach that meaning, and that can be done with this passage. I beleive teaching it as nothing more than another word for chastity (or virginity) robs us of a powerful word and concept.

(The Wikipedia link outlines rhe traits listed as virtues throughout history – and it talks about being able to find the proper balance between extremes, which is what constitutes virtue. The implication in all of that is having the ability and strength to avoid the extremes and find the proper point between them. In other words, the opposite of “a virtue” can be characterized as either easy extreme. That is why moderation is seen as a virtue – because it takes strength to be moderate, while being an extremist is so easy any weakling can do it.)

I had a patient, the mother of a girl who was raped when passed out at a party, come and see me distraught about her daughter’s loss of her virginity and chastity. My response to her was that given the circumstances she’d loss neither. She’d been abused and violated and as time went on it took her about two years to begin to recover from it but I believe that in God’s eyes she not lost virtue, chastity, or even her virginity.

What I am saying is that having one’s virtue stolen or taken away, in the original sense, meant losing the power, strength, control to resist evil – which is exactly what happened to the young women in the story. Also, again, there are TWO things listed as being lost: virtue AND chastity. It makes a lot more sense, linguistically, if they are different things – and they are in the original meanings that would have been in force at the time the story is said to have happened.

Sorry, Curt, but I think you’ve spun this one a few too many times. JS wrote what he and people believed back in the early 1800’s and they were wrong just like SWK was wrong in “Miracle of Forgiveness”. There are some things that shouldn’t be defended.