Rebuttal to Callister’s Ensign article

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Read this on another forum and those it might make us all smile:

From BYU Daily Universe back in 2009 or 2010 (this is written as a bit of satire… but is well worth the read):

Quote:

“Every month, The Daily Universe publishes a handful of letters urging female students to do their part in keeping the male mind pure. As a married woman, I do my best to avoid shirts that show figure and eschew the cross-the-chest messenger bag. But I must ask our male counterparts to show us the same respect.

To put it delicately, men must realize that their constant public displays of kindness make it extremely difficult for women to keep their thoughts in line.

When visiting campus, I often keep my head down and sing a hymn in my mind to avoid seeing the gratuitous acts of goodness that are everywhere — men holding doors for strangers, escorting sisters home at night, returning library books on time. If I unwittingly happen upon a gentleman holding the elevator for a latecomer, please remember this image can be seared into my mind for days.

Men, keep in mind that the female brain does not work in the same way as yours. What seems like a casual “good deed” to you can have a devastating effect on an otherwise innocent woman’s desire to control her thoughts. We need your help. So please limit your acts of kindness to interactions with your family members and all-male roommates. If you cannot keep your good deeds concealed, realize that you are holding a giant, chocolate cupcake in front of your fellow co-eds. Can women really be blamed if it gets a lick?”

Jamie Littlefield

Los Angeles, Calif.

[Anonymous]

I swear I remember reading that piece – hilarious!

I think the whole modesty issue would be a non-issue if we taught girls and boys that they had to “own” their bodies and their boundaries. But we don’t.

What we’ve done with modesty (and virtually every other doctrine) is supply the proverbial disease along with its antidote.

X doctrine is true, so true and essential in fact that the Lord provided Y commandment to help us understand it. And vice versa. We have this important commandment Y which becomes so obvious once you understand doctrine X, so understandable that you’ll willingly follow this rule if only you understand the doctrine.

The burden of proof is on the enforcers. Can we demonstrate – other than an appeal to conformity – that modesty is essential for feeling the spirit? If, however, our emphasis is on teaching responsibility for one’s own thoughts, actions and body, modesty might just be an easier thing to ask the youth. I think the same goes for the rest of it. Teach the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Not just the mystical justification. I know this requires the average person to read more books and it takes time, but these are our kids, right?

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

Quote:

Especially the any immodest thought is a sin category.

What bothers me most about that stupid statement is that multiple top leaders have said over and over and over again that it isn’t true – but it only takes one idiotic, hardline statement to over-ride multiple reasonable ones (like the Psychology 101 concept that one highly negative memory will over-ride 7-8 positive memories).

That sort of extreme statement needs to die – and I stab it every chance I get.

What is it that you are stabbing at?

[Anonymous]

science_saint wrote:

Teach the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Not just the mystical justification. I know this requires the average person to read more books and it takes time, but these are our kids, right?

Here is a video that does teach part of the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Also how technology has changed these consequences in major ways.

http://www.austin-institute.org/ai-research-animates/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.austin-institute.org/ai-research-animates/

[Anonymous]

Quote:

What is it that you are stabbing at?

That every immodest thought is a sin.

[Anonymous]

richalger wrote:

science_saint wrote:

Teach the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Not just the mystical justification. I know this requires the average person to read more books and it takes time, but these are our kids, right?

Here is a video that does teach part of the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Also how technology has changed these consequences in major ways.

http://www.austin-institute.org/ai-research-animates/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.austin-institute.org/ai-research-animates/

Thank you for the link Rich. This makes so much sense. Why do some LDS women feel that they are expected to simultaneously attract a man and keep his mind out of the gutter. Because you must attract a man if you expect him to put in the investment of wooing/marriage. This provides new context to Elder Christofferson’s comment “To the young women, don’t lose that moral force even before you have it in full measure.”

In this context “moral force” can be seen as keeping the market value for sex high (at or near marriage) and losing that “moral force” could be done through course language, immodest dress, or losing one’s virginity – anything that might signal to men that the market value for sex with you is something less than marriage.

I know that for me personally, my dream was of marrying an LDS girl in the temple. I did what I felt was required to make that happen.

This is so much clearer when explained in economic terms instead of sin.

Brilliant! Thanks again for sharing!

[Anonymous]

The meeting this morning started off on reading the majority of the recent first presidency instruction about same sex marriage and then doubling down on Callister’s article. It was even mentioned that there were members of the church that criticized the article but in a rebuking fashion. Not unexpected.

It’s nice that in some forums there was some discussion, people with open minds can be enriched from having intelligent discussion about important topics. I will say that it’s too bad that engaging in said discussion can be seen as a form of dissension.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

The meeting this morning started off on reading the majority of the recent first presidency instruction about same sex marriage and then doubling down on Callister’s article. It was even mentioned that there were members of the church that criticized the article but in a rebuking fashion. Not unexpected.

It’s nice that in some forums there was some discussion, people with open minds can be enriched from having intelligent discussion about important topics. I will say that it’s too bad that engaging in said discussion can be seen as a form of dissension.

Wow, I’m surprised that a church meeting (was it sacrament of branch council?) would be used as a forum for that kind of message. Quite sad. I feel like the church is moving both away from me and towards me depending on which article I read on any given day. I’m watching Elder Uchtdorf’s Church History symposium talk at the moment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rc5GyF5i3Y) – I like this church. I don’t like the anti-SSM/negative morals rhetoric one.

[Author]

Posts