Colorado school district pushes Christian ‘purity’ training for 11-year-old girls to find future husbands

Parents in Colorado have complained that a school district used its email system to advertise a Christian event which uses Bible lessons to encourage girls as young as 11 to stay “pure” while looking for a husband. Colorado blogger Anne Landman first reported that the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers had been contacted by parents after Mesa Valley School District 51 sent out an email promotion for an event called “Wake Up Sleeping Beauty: Worship At His Feet.” The flier includes the silhouette of a girl’s face with a Bible verse from Luke 7:38.
“As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them,” the flier reads.

The program, which is put on by June Fellhauer’s Wake Up Ministries, promises that girls will want to change their Facebook status to “The One Who Worships At His Feet.” A video posted to the Wake Up Sleeping Beauty Facebook page encourages fathers to “protect her purity.” The video shows a father watching over his daughter as she puts on makeup. In promotional videos on the Wake Up Ministries website, Fellhauer warns girls about the “gag reflex” caused by kissing with your tongue. “I think ‘Wake Up Sleeping Beauty’ is an amazing program,” one girl declares in the video. “Especially going through the time that I was, being cheated on. That was really hard for me but it also made me realize a lot that I needed to forgive him and he didn’t have the qualities I was looking for in a husband.”

But it was the imagery from the flier sent out by District 51 that parents found so disturbing. “The idea of a woman or girl (‘she’) crying at a man’s feet, then using her hair to wash his feet, then kissing his feet, seems pretty demeaning to me,” one parent said. “Apparently the irony of this imagery used to promote an event which purports to strengthen or support girls/women is lost on all involved.” A complaint from the parent was quickly dismissed by the school district. “Having reviewed the flyer and KHB-R per your request, we do not find that the flyer promotes a religious organization or demeans a person or group on the basis of gender,” District 51 Communications Specialist Jeannie Smith told the parent in an email.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/colorado-school-district-pushes-christian-purity-training-for-11-year-old-girls-to-find-future-husbands/

Oh dear.
If there is a God. He would be utterly disgusted by this

Very typical of Western Slope (of the Rocky Mts.) country, which is predominately Mormon (Arizona, Utah and Idaho).  Although this is western Colorado, the influence spills over political boundaries.

Despite the title of the article, I see no discussion within it of Christianity.  It reflects the views of an outsider, misunderstanding the subject.  It is a Mormon movement, not Christian.  You see, Mormons are not Christian.  They don’t believe in the Trinity, the whole point of the Pauline New Testament.  The LDS rely on the stories and imagery of the New Testament, but reject the central thesis.

It is religion, but not Christian religion.

Again nobody can say what true Christianity really is unless you have a Tardis and can go back and talk to Jesus himself. Being as there is 42,000 Christian denominations all believing they follow to them true Christianity, it is based on faith alone as to their reasoning. There is obviously the biggest following of Christianity that being Pauline Christianity and only because the Jerusalem Church headed up by the brother of Jesus was basically wiped out when the City was sacked by the Romans. It is a form of Christianity, a very troubling one at that and whilst I would never deny people their view to thinking they believe they follow the True Christianity, again nobody can prove that they do. All they can do is prove what religious texts and interpretations of those texts they follow. None can prove their deity exists. All you can really question is the beliefs of that specific christian sect, if a follow contradict them.

So lets not side track from the actual issue here of what this is about

Didge wrote:Again nobody can say what true Christianity really is unless you have a Tardis and can go back and talk to Jesus himself. Being as there is 42,000 Christian denominations all believing they follow to them true Christianity, it is based on faith alone as to their reasoning. There is obviously the biggest following of Christianity that being Pauline Christianity and only because the Jerusalem Church headed up by the brother of Jesus was basically wiped out when the City was sacked by the Romans. It is a form of Christianity, a very troubling one at that and whilst I would never deny people their view to thinking they believe they follow the True Christianity, again nobody can prove that they do. All they can do is prove what religious texts and interpretations of those texts they follow. All you can really questions is the beliefs of that christian sect, if people contradict them.

So lets not side track from the actual issue here of what this is about

Jesus would not understand Christianity, either. He was not a Christian, but an agnostic Jew. The detail of the Christian religion was developed and written by Paul, long after the death of Jesus. Paul never even met Jesus.

Paul developed the idea of the Trinity in support of redemption. Placed in an historical context, the theory was grasped to support the togetherness needed by Constantine, at or around the decline of the Roman Empire. Doctrinal Christianity was fully developed only at the Council of Nicaea, a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

In the Mormonism represented by most of Mormon communities (including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), "God" means Elohim (the Father), whereas "Godhead" means a council of three distinct gods; Elohim, Jehovah (the Son, or Jesus), and the Holy Spirit.

The Father and Son have perfected, material bodies, while the Holy Spirit is a spirit and does not have a body. This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; in Mormonism, the three persons are considered to be physically separate beings, or personages, but only united in will and purpose. As such, the term "Godhead" differs from how it is used in traditional Christianity. This description of God represents the orthodoxy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), established early in the 19th century. However, the Mormon concept of God has expanded since the faith's founding in the late 1820s. Joseph Smith said after his First Vision that God and Jesus both have physical bodies.

Being nontrinitarian, the teachings of the LDS Church differ from other Christian churches' theologies as established, for example, in the First Council of Constantinople. Mormon cosmology teaches the existence of other "gods" such as is exhibited in the concept of the Godhead being three, separate, distinct beings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Mormonism

I don't see what's so awful about it tbh.

I would consider Mormons to be Christians btw.

Again that is your interpretation based off religious Text Quill, and mainly off the bible and not other works that were omitted from the bible, Thus you are reliant on people who claim to have known Jesus who makes views and aspects to his life, which are at best unreliable without any outside corroborating sources.
So again what you view as the correct Christianity is based off your interpretation off Christian text within the bible and there is only a view to judge then based off that denominations beliefs.
As again nobody can verify any of this, as nobody can prove a deity exists, and nothing is written in the hand of Jesus himself. All that Christian scholars agree on is the sayings of Jesus being more probable.
So people can claim to follow the true Christianity, but nobody can prove they follow the true Christianity.

Here is a biblical scholar talking to dawkins

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see what's so awful about it tbh.

Largely as a result of the English Civil War and the acrimony it brought about, America grew to be strongly anti-establishment (religion). When the founders came to write the Constitution, they outlawed any establishment of a religion by means of the First Amendment. So it is an unconstitutional action for any governmental entity to promote a religious cause.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would consider Mormons to be Christians btw.

And you could consider pigs capable of flight...you would still be wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see what's so awful about it tbh.

Largely as a result of the English Civil War and the acrimony it brought about, America grew to be strongly anti-establishment (religion).  When the founders came to write the Constitution, they outlawed any establishment of a religion by means of the First Amendment.  So it is an unconstitutional action for any governmental entity to promote a religious cause.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would consider Mormons to be Christians btw.

And you could consider pigs capable of flight...you would still be wrong.

I'm not "wrong". In your opinion they are not Christians, and in my opinion they are.

Didge wrote:Again that is your interpretation based off religious Text Quill, and mainly off the bible and not other works that were omitted from the bible, Thus you are reliant on people who claim to have known Jesus who makes views and aspects to his life, which are at best unreliable without any outside corroborating sources.
So again what you view as the correct Christianity is based off your interpretation off Christian text within the bible and there is only a view to judge then based off that denominations beliefs.
As again nobody can verify any of this, as nobody can prove a deity exists, and nothing is written in the hand of Jesus himself. All that Christian scholars agree on is the sayings of Jesus being more probable.
So people can claim to follow the true Christianity, but nobody can prove they follow the true Christianity.

Here is a biblical scholar talking to dawkins

The authoritative text is the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see what's so awful about it tbh.

Largely as a result of the English Civil War and the acrimony it brought about, America grew to be strongly anti-establishment (religion).  When the founders came to write the Constitution, they outlawed any establishment of a religion by means of the First Amendment.  So it is an unconstitutional action for any governmental entity to promote a religious cause.

Raggamuffin wrote:I would consider Mormons to be Christians btw.

And you could consider pigs capable of flight...you would still be wrong.

I'm not "wrong". In your opinion they are not Christians, and in my opinion they are.

So what about the idea that people can become gods?

Wikipedia wrote:
Members of the LDS Church believe that human beings can grow and progress spiritually until, through the mercy and grace of Christ, they can inherit and possess all that the Father has—they can become gods.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Again that is your interpretation based off religious Text Quill, and mainly off the bible and not other works that were omitted from the bible, Thus you are reliant on people who claim to have known Jesus who makes views and aspects to his life, which are at best unreliable without any outside corroborating sources.
So again what you view as the correct Christianity is based off your interpretation off Christian text within the bible and there is only a view to judge then based off that denominations beliefs.
As again nobody can verify any of this, as nobody can prove a deity exists, and nothing is written in the hand of Jesus himself. All that Christian scholars agree on is the sayings of Jesus being more probable.
So people can claim to follow the true Christianity, but nobody can prove they follow the true Christianity.

Here is a biblical scholar talking to dawkins

The authoritative text is the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

Does not matter, as who made the New testament the authoritative text on Christianity?

Men, who never had even met Jesus centuries after.

What does it matter what religion it is?
I still think the actual notion is plain ridiculous.

eddie wrote:What does it matter what religion it is?
I still think the actual notion is plain ridiculous.

Agreed 100%

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The authoritative text is the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

Does not matter, as who made the New testament the authoritative text on Christianity?

Men, who never had even met Jesus centuries after.

Absolutely. I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Returning to the premise I raised, Mormonism contradicts Christianity in the one central thesis of the latter, the idea of the Trinity. While in Christianity, the Trinity is the union of the father, the son and the holy spirit--ie, they are all the same--in Mormonism both the father and the son have real-life, corporeal bodies, and they are quite distinct from the doctrine of the religion (the 'holy spirit'). The union of the three is essential to the notion of redemption (...whosoever shall believeth in him, but he be dead, so shall he live., John 3:15-17). By rejecting the Trinity, Mormons disavow the central thesis of Christianity.

eddie wrote:What does it matter what religion it is?
I still think the actual notion is plain ridiculous.

I know. I said that too. It's just an interesting addition to the back story.

These are not Christians, but a sect or off-shoot. It's interesting because the Mormon religion is extremely insular, and hence you find them so out-of-keeping with the mainstream of America. They are almost not Americans.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Does not matter, as who made the New testament the authoritative text on Christianity?

Men, who never had even met Jesus centuries after.

Absolutely.  I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Returning to the premise I raised, Mormonism contradicts Christianity in the one central thesis of the latter, the idea of the Trinity.  While in Christianity, the Trinity is the union of the father, the son and the holy spirit--ie, they are all the same--in Mormonism both the father and the son have real-life, corporeal bodies, and they are quite distinct from the doctrine of the religion (the 'holy spirit').  The union of the three is essential to the notion of redemption (...whosoever shall believeth in him, but he be dead, so shall he live., John 3:15-17).  By rejecting the Trinity, Mormons disavow the central thesis of Christianity.

But again the trinity concept is something that Paul created and invented Quill, and may well be far removed from what Jesus claimed or actually taught himself. Remember this is all faith based and very much unreliable when it comes to historically being able to verify supernatural claims, like Paul having a vision of Jesus and thus questionable that he even met Jesus. So all you could then say is that Mormonism, which is also very much an invention itself, is in conflict with Pauline Christianity doctrine. Remember it was only really decided at the council of Nicaea, which was up again Arianism. So this is all a faith based debate based on views over what people held again centuries after Jesus lived off the works of Paul and other Christian writers. It does not mean that people are not Christian based off different view points, only as already explained in that it would conflict with Pauline Christianity,

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Absolutely.  I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Returning to the premise I raised, Mormonism contradicts Christianity in the one central thesis of the latter, the idea of the Trinity.  While in Christianity, the Trinity is the union of the father, the son and the holy spirit--ie, they are all the same--in Mormonism both the father and the son have real-life, corporeal bodies, and they are quite distinct from the doctrine of the religion (the 'holy spirit').  The union of the three is essential to the notion of redemption (...whosoever shall believeth in him, but he be dead, so shall he live., John 3:15-17).  By rejecting the Trinity, Mormons disavow the central thesis of Christianity.

But again the trinity concept is something that Paul created and invented Quill, and may well be far removed from what Jesus claimed or actually taught himself. Remember this is all faith based and very much unreliable when it comes to historically being able to verify supernatural claims, like Paul having a vision of Jesus and thus questionable that he even met Jesus. So all you could then say is that Mormonism, which is also very much an invention itself, is in conflict with Pauline Christianity doctrine. Remember it was only really decided at the council of Nicaea, which was up again Arianism. So this is all a faith based debate based on views over what people held again centuries after Jesus lived off the works of Paul and other Christian writers. It does not mean that people are not Christian based off different view points, only as already explained in that it would conflict with Pauline Christianity,

But to say that something is faith-based, is not to deny that faith motivates people. Indeed, to the contrary.  In this story, I recognized immediately that the LDS religion was at issue.  You could see in the nuances of the story, that the Mormon hand was operating.

That, in turn, tells me something about the political background of what is taking place.  Mormons are a highly insular group.  They are largely divorced from American society, and question much of the ideology upon which American ideals are based.  They are polygamists.  They believe in child marriage.  They believe their religion supersedes the law.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

But again the trinity concept is something that Paul created and invented Quill, and may well be far removed from what Jesus claimed or actually taught himself. Remember this is all faith based and very much unreliable when it comes to historically being able to verify supernatural claims, like Paul having a vision of Jesus and thus questionable that he even met Jesus. So all you could then say is that Mormonism, which is also very much an invention itself, is in conflict with Pauline Christianity doctrine. Remember it was only really decided at the council of Nicaea, which was up again Arianism. So this is all a faith based debate based on views over what people held again centuries after Jesus lived off the works of Paul and other Christian writers. It does not mean that people are not Christian based off different view points, only as already explained in that it would conflict with Pauline Christianity,

But to say that something is faith-based, is not to deny that faith motivates people.  Indeed, to the contrary.  In this story, I recognized immediately that the LDS religion was at issue.  You could see in the nuances of the story, that the Mormon hand was operating.

That, in turn, tells me something about the political background of what is taking place.  Mormons are a highly insular group.  They are largely divorced from American society, and question much of the ideology upon which American ideals are based.  They are polygamists.  They believe in child marriage.  They believe their religion supersedes the law.

I understand that Quill, but you cannot deny people their religious identity, just because you disagree with it based on something that is fundamentally faith based. All you can do is differ over religious doctrine, but not be able to prove what is right as who can, when we are talking about something nobody can prove exists, a deity

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But to say that something is faith-based, is not to deny that faith motivates people.  Indeed, to the contrary.  In this story, I recognized immediately that the LDS religion was at issue.  You could see in the nuances of the story, that the Mormon hand was operating.

That, in turn, tells me something about the political background of what is taking place.  Mormons are a highly insular group.  They are largely divorced from American society, and question much of the ideology upon which American ideals are based.  They are polygamists.  They believe in child marriage.  They believe their religion supersedes the law.

I understand that Quill, but you cannot deny people their religious identity, just because you disagree with it based on something that is fundamentally faith based. All you can do is differ over religious doctrine, but not be able to prove what is right as who can, when we are talking about something nobody can prove exists, a deity

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time. In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people. The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that. No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

I understand that Quill, but you cannot deny people their religious identity, just because you disagree with it based on something that is fundamentally faith based. All you can do is differ over religious doctrine, but not be able to prove what is right as who can, when we are talking about something nobody can prove exists, a deity

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time.  In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that.  No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

Not debating the points on the constitution Quill, but on the right of people as to how they religiously identify themselves, just the same as they do ethnically etc. I agree its fundamentally wrong what they are doing

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time.  In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that.  No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

Not debating the points on the constitution Quill, but on the right of people as to how they religiously identify themselves, just the same as they do ethnically etc. I agree its fundamentally wrong what they are doing

That's all we may say about it. For the Constitution prohibits the other side too...no one may prohibit a citizen from practicing his religion, as well. The essential ingredient in this story is the fact that the government is imposing it's beliefs on the citizens.

The Constitution was written with the belief that government was an evil that we must indulge in, and therefore we must limit it at every turn. That's why in the first ten amendments you have so many limitations on government, from prohibitions on laws over religion and speech, to wrongful search and seizure, due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment, and yes...freedom to carry arms.

Some of them today--like free speech--I still champion. The 2nd Amendment is another matter.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

I understand that Quill, but you cannot deny people their religious identity, just because you disagree with it based on something that is fundamentally faith based. All you can do is differ over religious doctrine, but not be able to prove what is right as who can, when we are talking about something nobody can prove exists, a deity

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time.  In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that.  No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

It's not doing either of those things - it's giving advice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time.  In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that.  No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

It's not doing either of those things - it's giving advice.

Yes...very persuasive advice. In fact, I think the appropriate adjective would be, conclusive. Can you imagine a prosecutor proceeding with an information on a high-profile case, after having a grand jury refuse?

In any case, you miss the point. The real problem is the violation of the adversary nature of a legal proceeding. It's all a charade when the prosecutor and the defendant are on the same side. The prosecutor simply lightens up on the evidence presented, and voilà...what a surprise! The guy walked.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not doing either of those things - it's giving advice.

Yes...very persuasive advice.  In fact, I think the appropriate adjective would be, conclusive.  Can you imagine a prosecutor proceeding with an information on a high-profile case, after having a grand jury refuse?

In any case, you miss the point.  The real problem is the violation of the adversary nature of a legal proceeding.  It's all a charade when the prosecutor and the defendant are on the same side.  The prosecutor simply lightens up on the evidence presented, and voilà...what a surprise!  The guy walked.

What are you talking about? This isn't a court case or a legal proceeding.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, but the question comes at us from the other side this time.  In this story, it is the government--in the form of a school district--which is imposing, or attempting to impose it's religion on the people.  The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits that.  No government entity may impose it's religious beliefs on citizens of the US.

It's not doing either of those things - it's giving advice.

Advice that is born in the mentality of the 12th century.
So how is it in anyway good what they are advising to make children be so utterly naive to the world to day based off not any sound sense but religious nonsense?

when they get to 18....can I "test" their "purity"

Lord Foul wrote:when they get to 18....can I "test" their "purity"

As you are a grumpy bear does that mean the temperature of your porridge or the hardness of your bed?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes...very persuasive advice.  In fact, I think the appropriate adjective would be, conclusive.  Can you imagine a prosecutor proceeding with an information on a high-profile case, after having a grand jury refuse?

In any case, you miss the point.  The real problem is the violation of the adversary nature of a legal proceeding.  It's all a charade when the prosecutor and the defendant are on the same side.  The prosecutor simply lightens up on the evidence presented, and voilà...what a surprise!  The guy walked.

What are you talking about? This isn't a court case or a legal proceeding.

A grand jury proceeding is indeed a legal proceeding. I think what you mean to say is that it is not adversarial.

That's how they are able to pervert the process. It's a clear conflict of interest.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What are you talking about? This isn't a court case or a legal proceeding.

A grand jury proceeding is indeed a legal proceeding.  I think what you mean to say is that it is not adversarial.

That's how they are able to pervert the process.  It's a clear conflict of interest.

What does any of this have to do with grand juries?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not doing either of those things - it's giving advice.

Advice that is born in the mentality of the 12th century.
So how is it in anyway good what they are advising to make children be so utterly naive to the world to day based off not any sound sense but religious nonsense?

How is it advising them to be naive?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Advice that is born in the mentality of the 12th century.
So how is it in anyway good what they are advising to make children be so utterly naive to the world to day based off not any sound sense but religious nonsense?

How is it advising them to be naive?

Do you want me to point out many bad passages of the bible as lessons on life?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How is it advising them to be naive?

Do you want me to point out many bad passages of the bible as lessons on life?

Would you rather they were advised to have sex with any bloke who asked them?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Do you want me to point out many bad passages of the bible as lessons on life?

Would you rather they were advised to have sex with any bloke who asked them?

Do you need bible lessons for that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Would you rather they were advised to have sex with any bloke who asked them?

Do you need bible lessons for that?

For what?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Do you need bible lessons for that?

For what?

To your question on social issues for girls with sexual pressure from boys

Do they need bible lessons for that?

No rags, the best thing to teach 11 year old girls has got nothing to do with men or boys.
We should be teaching them to be strong, independent and to study hard to find a career path of their choosing.
Oh, and to respect their bodies.

Pretty much the same advice you'd give an 11 year old boy.

It seems that some people don't mind that actual message, they just don't like the religious slant to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems that some people don't mind that actual message, they just don't like the religious slant to it.

I don't like the message