For Mormons and Exmormons: Object Lessons in Church

[_ludwigm]

...
Some of the younger folks.....under 30...I might buy this from....But if you're over 35, and have been a member of the Church most of your life, I would be hard pressed to believe that you hadn't been submitted to at least ONE of these object lessons.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Mormonism, the angsoc in "1984" and the real socialism in East-Europe have MANY in common.

I'm not a member (see the definition above my avatar) but my wife. Her father was protestant minister. (You know, the hireling of the devil from pre-1990 version.) I can not make her understand that "pre" version:
1. There are only a few older member in Hungary, who know it.
2. If I can find one of them, he/she is not willing to tell even TO HER ONLY - it is secr# (sorry) sacred.
3. I may not show her the internet sources, "the internet is a product of devil" (Why? Because the majority of my knowledge come from here)

Same are the old lessons.
Result: many times there is no way though communicate the simplest truth.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

What's surprising to me is that MAD posters whom others think are so kind or undeserving of criticism are some of the worst, in my opinion! Kate, for example. I mean it, she's a nasty one. Not so bright, either.

KA

[Guest]

So, what say you, LOaP, about the posters on Nauvoo forums discussing a few of the unfortunate object lessons I've described? Why would they be discussing them, either defending them or condemning them, if they were not familiar with such lessons? Those lessons are common in the Mormon church.

And the article from Beliefnet? The one where the Mormon author mentions such lessons that she and her friends endured as young girls?

And the posters here and the (few) posters on MAD who have now admitted to having the lessons? Structurecop and CMZ(or whatver letters comprise his name - the rude one, well, one of the rude ones)? Alter Idem gave several examples of the lesson being given.

Sure, we have a small sampling of Mormons and Exmormons on the net, but considering that quite a few people from that sample, from different areas of the country, have experienced poorly designed chastity object lessons, do you see now that my experience is not an aberration? The fact that I can google and easily come up with other examples in a matter of a few minutes ought to tell you something, too.

I stand by my initial assertion that such lessons are widespread. I'm right.

I will now call you AssOnaPlate until I've had my fill of doing it. :P

PS - I just went back and looked at the original Licked Cupcake thread and found that Beastie mentioned she remembered the cupcake lesson from when she taught YW, and Harmony said her ward taught the lesson a couple of times, but it didn't work on her girls because they ate the licked cupcakes anyway! So, there's two more for your little list since you're keeping such careful count. Perhaps if you ask nicely, Harmony and Beastie will give you an approximate number of children in their wards so you can add them to your tally. Or, you can just admit the lessons are widespread and that you were wrong.

Here's a link to the old thread, since my crediblity is so shot with you. Check it yourself.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... sc&start=0

KA

[_Inconceivable]

I very distinctly remember an object lesson in Young Women's. A councilor in the bishopric came in and said he was going to give us a piece of peppermint candy. He opened it but "accidentally" dropped it, then stepped on it, and just got it gross and dirty. Then he picked it up and asked us if any of us wanted it. Of course none of us did. Then he compared it to sleeping around.

Then, I remember lesson where someone literally had a salad prepared and brought it to class (may have been a Saturday stake youth activity, not sure). They asked us if we liked salad, and someone or all of us may have eaten it. Then he dumped a small amount of dirt in the salad and stirred it. He asked if anyone would eat the salad now. Of course no one would. He said "but there is hardly any dirt in the salad, are you sure you don't want it?" No, we didn't want it. Eventually he made the point that even just a little sin can ruin things.

OBVIOUSLY, this was an object lesson not meant for the boyscouts (12-16 year old aaronic priesthood). All boyscouts have a "10 second rule" (and even then, it's just a guideline).

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

How is it different? Either way the girl's virtue is gone, from a religious perspective. The lesson applies probably more to rape than it does consentual, joyful sluttiness. From a sexuality standpoint, nothing is filthier to a woman than being raped. I agree with whoever said that the girl who was raped by her creepy old uncle feels more like a dirty wedding cake than the girl having consentual sex with a nice boy in her class. That lesson effects rape victims the most, because they feel the dirtiest.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

On the other hand, there are people who find through their searches that many people they encounter are familiar with such a thing, thus, anyone who doesn't accept that it is widespread are dumb apologists.

I'd like to add a thought: I've since spoken with several people who recall the "licked candy" lesson and it was applied to kissing, not sexual intercourse. The lesson is still stupid, but not related to losing one's virginity.

KA: Apparently, the lesson is more widespread than I expected, which is sad. Again, I will do my best to prevent such lame lessons.

[Guest]

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.

You hit the nail on the head, guy. My grandma is a big fan of Stalin and thinks life under him was just peachy. And she did have a family member carted off to prison for not wanting to join a collectivist farm. Her reaction - he brought it upon himself and all the free labor force greatly helped our economy.

And all the tales from Primary of how nice the prophet Joseph was, what with showing his incredible character and refusing alcohol while his leg was being operated on, or taking care of baby mice, give me a really eerie feeling. They remind me of stories about Lenin's childhood and how nice he was to children we read in kindergarten.

LOAP, although sticking to the manual is encouraged, the teachers are not forbidden from using other resources, including object lessons. And look what this Church-owned website is linking to: the messy candy object lesson!

Scroll down and click on the Gospel Teacher's Resource Page link. (Actually, whoever made this little treasure thinks it's "Gospil", not "Gospel"). Then "Get an Idea" and "Morality".

Materials: Some kind of messy candy, Paper towel and wetwipes to clean up with.
Activity:Ask a few class members to close there eyes. Tell them that you will place a object in the hands of the first class member, and that they should each in turn feel the object, with there eyes closed, closely examining the object until they think they know what it is. Once they have it figured out they should pass the object to the next person in line. this continues until each student has an opportunity to hold the candy. All the while the candy is getting messier and messier. When the last student is finished with it you hold it up in front of the class so they can see it and ask if any one would like to eat it.
The candy is likened to ones morality and that if you begin passing it around freely it becomes messy until eventually nobody wants it. Explain to the students it is important to keep your morality sacred until you get married so you don't risk ruining such a wonderful thing. It can also be pointed out that not only the candy (or person represented by the candy), but also every person who handled it became messy.

Oh yeah, and here's some more evidence of lay members equating morality with abstinence we've been talking about.

[_guy sajer]

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.

On the other hand, there are people who find through their searches that many people they encounter are familiar with such a thing, thus, anyone who doesn't accept that it is widespread are dumb apologists.

True enough. I have no idea how widespread it is, or if it is the norm. But I do have sufficient data points to conclude that it is not uncommon, and based on my experience in the Church, I find the claim that it is widespread credible.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Materials: Some kind of messy candy, Paper towel and wetwipes to clean up with.
Activity:Ask a few class members to close there eyes. Tell them that you will place a object in the hands of the first class member, and that they should each in turn feel the object, with there eyes closed, closely examining the object until they think they know what it is. Once they have it figured out they should pass the object to the next person in line. this continues until each student has an opportunity to hold the candy. All the while the candy is getting messier and messier. When the last student is finished with it you hold it up in front of the class so they can see it and ask if any one would like to eat it.
The candy is likened to ones morality and that if you begin passing it around freely it becomes messy until eventually nobody wants it. Explain to the students it is important to keep your morality sacred until you get married so you don't risk ruining such a wonderful thing. It can also be pointed out that not only the candy (or person represented by the candy), but also every person who handled it became messy.

I love being that piece of sticky sweet, messy, candy. And it's been my experience that the messier I am the more some wanna get a taste for themselves.

Ack!

Not going to return to this thread. Carry on. :)

[_Scottie]

Materials: Some kind of messy candy, Paper towel and wetwipes to clean up with.
Activity:Ask a few class members to close there eyes. Tell them that you will place a object in the hands of the first class member, and that they should each in turn feel the object, with there eyes closed, closely examining the object until they think they know what it is. Once they have it figured out they should pass the object to the next person in line. this continues until each student has an opportunity to hold the candy. All the while the candy is getting messier and messier. When the last student is finished with it you hold it up in front of the class so they can see it and ask if any one would like to eat it.
The candy is likened to ones morality and that if you begin passing it around freely it becomes messy until eventually nobody wants it. Explain to the students it is important to keep your morality sacred until you get married so you don't risk ruining such a wonderful thing. It can also be pointed out that not only the candy (or person represented by the candy), but also every person who handled it became messy.

Holy s***!! Are you kidding me?? Now, not only is the slut dirty, but anyone who affiliates with the slut is dirty as well???