For Mormons and Exmormons: Object Lessons in Church

[_barrelomonkeys]

My husband is under 30, and he got the touched gum lesson. Sure enough, the gum represented girls, just like KA's essay said.

I was a YW for a short while since I'm a convert, but never got any lessons like that. Must be a Utah thing.

I think it's disgusting, and the natural question arises why this gum/cupcake/donut/cake never represents males. Has anyone ever had an expereience where it did?

I've had similar lessons, but it was in reference to bad parts of movies, etc.

That the examples people have mentioned are clearly slanted to show the defect as being a woman's issue is one of the biggest beefs I have with the parable, no pun intended.

So state what your lessons were and don't poo poo that other people had different lessons.

I really don't get why you keep popping up in this thread. You are not a woman? You were not raised female in the Church?! Have you dealt with the shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being?

If no, then why do you keep popping up to discount stories of others that did deal with this?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't deny the object lesson was [and may very well currently be] taught in the Church. I affirm it is not the product of any Church-sanctioned teaching manual. Individual members are free to be poor teachers and present poor lessons, and when I am apprised of it I have sought to show a better way. (Hence my interest in the subject.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So state what your lessons were and don't poo poo that other people had different lessons.

I really don't get why you keep popping up in this thread. You are not a woman? You were not raised female in the Church?! Have you dealt with the shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being?

If no, then why do you keep popping up to discount stories of others that did deal with this?

Whoa, Barrel, I wouldn't expect this type of a response from you. [especially because you weren't raised in the Church, either, but I guess your gender entitles you to be less sexist than I apparently am? ;) ] My intention is not to discount the stories of others who deal with this. Additionally, I've spoken with a few women who have not felt any "shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being." It happens, but it's not right and it should be curtailed when possible.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm not feelin' a lot of friendliness around here lately!


By the way, as an aside, don't you just hate when those smarmy prigs over at MAD attack people who differ in view from them? ;)

[_barrelomonkeys]

I don't deny the object lesson was [and may very well currently be] taught in the Church. I affirm it is not the product of any Church-sanctioned teaching manual. Individual members are free to be poor teachers and present poor lessons, and when I am apprised of it I have sought to show a better way. (Hence my interest in the subject.)

You typed this:

I don't see it as "commonplace," which to me would indicate more than a few people, or even a few hundred.

How can you even make that statement? Read my above questions to you. If you have no first hand knowledge how can you possibly make such a statement. You are deep in this thread and yet are trying to excuse the Church because these lessons were not Church sanctioned.

The thing I don't get about "Church" sanctioned activities is this: If it occurs in the Church, is taught in the Church, and the Church does not tell members to cease and desist these lessons then they are complacent.

This is a harmful lesson to girls and it IS taught in the Church. And THAT is enough.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I don't deny the object lesson was [and may very well currently be] taught in the Church. I affirm it is not the product of any Church-sanctioned teaching manual. Individual members are free to be poor teachers and present poor lessons, and when I am apprised of it I have sought to show a better way. (Hence my interest in the subject.)

Do the young women being taught know what is in the manual and what is offically approved correlated doctrine and what is not? What if the person giving the cupcake lesson is the Bishop? As far as a young woman is concerned, that lesson was sanctioned by the Lord. Saying the teacher screwed up is a cop-out because the students, particularly young people, believe what is being taught is gospel doctrine. Don't say "Well, that's not doctrine." because if it is being taught as part of an official church activity by a person set apart by Priesthood authority to teach, it is doctrine.

[_barrelomonkeys]

So state what your lessons were and don't poo poo that other people had different lessons.

I really don't get why you keep popping up in this thread. You are not a woman? You were not raised female in the Church?! Have you dealt with the shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being?

If no, then why do you keep popping up to discount stories of others that did deal with this?

Whoa, Barrel, I wouldn't expect this type of a response from you. [especially because you weren't raised in the Church, either, but I guess your gender entitles you to be less sexist than I apparently am? ;) ] My intention is not to discount the stories of others who deal with this. Additionally, I've spoken with a few women who have not felt any "shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being." It happens, but it's not right and it should be curtailed when possible.

Thank God I wasn't raised in the Church. Praise Jesus, Jebus, Allah, Buddha, and my fairy godmother for that good fortune.

I think it's clear if there are women in this thread, and others, that say this lesson effected them then I can speak to THAT. That is precisely what I've done. I see you trying to make excuses for the Church for these lessons and I have to wonder why.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I'm not feelin' a lot of friendliness around here lately!


By the way, as an aside, don't you just hate when those smarmy prigs over at MAD attack people who differ in view from them? ;)

No, I don't. I appreciate debate. I'm not attacking you LOAP - am I?

Do you want me to post in violet and blow kissy wissies at you when I post. *smooch*

I don't care if your views differ from mine. Yet, I can ask you why you hold those beliefs, no? Why you are asserting said beliefs or opinions, no? I can comment on your assertions and statements, no? Is that an attack?

[_Zoidberg]

So state what your lessons were and don't poo poo that other people had different lessons.

I really don't get why you keep popping up in this thread. You are not a woman? You were not raised female in the Church?! Have you dealt with the shame, guilt, fear that go along with societal, or religious, pressures to stay chaste or else you are a terribly flawed, disgusting, non-lovable human being?

If no, then why do you keep popping up to discount stories of others that did deal with this?

Let him stay. Maybe it'll help him shift his paradigm.

Object lesson from another church: I had a friend who lived in Nebraska for a short time and went to some Protestant church. And, of course, they had an object lesson on chastity there, as well, albeit with a more humane twist.

They took some scotch tape (Miss Tape) and presented it to the youth saying how it was clean and pure yada yada yada. Then they called a volunteer guy from the audience and wrapped it around his arm and then peeled it off. Obviously, it wasn't so clean anymore. Then they called another guy and wrapped it around his arm, then another guy, etc., and, obviously, every time it was less and less sticky until it wouldn't stick at all. The moral of the story was that if you sleep around and take sex lightly, it will be harder for you to form meaningful relationships.

Oh, and you will be dirty and gross, of course.

So she and I and a friend of ours were discussing that lesson, and he said "Well, if you don't use the tape, it will just expire and lose its stickiness on its own, without ever having been used". I thought it was awesome.

An analogy can always backfire.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How can you even make that statement? Read my above questions to you. If you have no first hand knowledge how can you possibly make such a statement. You are deep in this thread and yet are trying to excuse the Church because these lessons were not Church sanctioned.

The thing I don't get about "Church" sanctioned activities is this: If it occurs in the Church, is taught in the Church, and the Church does not tell members to cease and desist these lessons then they are complacent.

This is a harmful lesson to girls and it IS taught in the Church. And THAT is enough.

Agreed, and I'll do everything I can to prevent it from being taught.