Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[UVACoug]

(A) the quote would include rape victims whether or not it included abuse victims. This is the sort of thing you see on the LSAT. Venn diagrams, all that.

Ummm ... no. When read in context, there is nothing to suggest he is talking about rape victims in that section.

(B) ignoring A, does that somehow make the statement any less deplorable?

It depends on what you think he is talking about. Is he talking about people that are physically forced or coerced into sexual sin? I don't think he is ... but if you do, then I agree it would be deplorable.

[CardiacCoug]

I'm getting at the point that you misrepresented what he said (shocking). I am not sure what exactly he means, but when read in context ... it sounds like he is talking about consenting to participating in sexual sin when you are not coerced to do so. I actually don't really think that is too hard to understand. Where you got that he was talking about being raped is beyond me.

Ha! So you're explaining that RGS said "victim" of abuse when what he really meant was consensual participant in extramarital sex.

And I'm the one trying to misrepresent what he said. Gotcha. Funny stuff.

[ERCougar]

Who said anything about rape victims? I am talking about intellectually superior people here who don't seem to be able to understand modern english (note that the CURRENT dictionary definition of "virtue" and "chastity" have a secondary meaning that make them synonymous to "virginity"). The only way you can read Moroni 9:9 and think he is saying that rape victims are less good than non-rape victims is if you are ignorant of the secondary meaning of those words ... or you have an agenda.

sigh...let's try this again:

OR...
I don't think that when we're talking about messages being heard by teenage girls, I don't find how 'intellectually superior' middle aged Mormon men interpret passages the least bit relevant.

[UVACoug]

Ha! So you're explaining that RGS said "victim" of abuse when what he really meant was consensual participant in extramarital sex.

And I'm the one trying to misrepresent what he said. Gotcha. Funny stuff.

For being the genius that you are, you sure do have a black and white view of the world (at least when it comes to disparaging church leaders). You don't think it is possible to be the victim of abuse and to still have the ability to choose not to have sex? Abuse comes in many varieties and contexts. Clearly, you seem stuck on the idea that violent rape is the only form of abuse that is relevant here. Abuse doesn't have to be violent, and it doesn't have to be that overly coercive. Someone can be be mentally abusive by putting undue pressure on someone to have sex. Does that rise to the level of coercion? In some cases yes ... in some cases no.

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose your husband is an asshole who treats you like crap if you don't give in to his sexual requests on a regular basis. You have sex with him whenever he demands it because you know what you will have to put up with if you don't. He never physically harms you, and you can get by just fine if you say no. You aren't coerced, but life is just a lot easier when you do what he wants. Now, suppose he starts suggesting that he wants to have a threesome. You are opposed to it morally, but he keeps insisting on it and is making life difficult for you for not agreeing to it. Eventually you decide to do it to make life easier.

Is the husband abusive there? Absolutely. Was the wife forced to do something she considered to be a sin? No. Would she be responsible for giving in, even though she is a victim of abuse? According to Elder Scott ... maybe.

[Northwestcoug]

I don't think a single one of those quotes support the position. In fact, quite a few support the opposite.

This is just piling on, but seriously????

[UVACoug]

sigh...let's try this again:

OR...
I don't think that when we're talking about messages being heard by teenage girls, I don't find how 'intellectually superior' middle aged Mormon men interpret passages the least bit relevant.

A completely different point that I don't disagree with. The audience here (which to my knowledge seems to be mostly made up of "intellectually superior" middle aged men), however, seems to be having a hard time interpreting that scripture.

The problem is not with the scripture (which really is not that hard to understand). The problem is with the people teaching it. If young teenage girls are having a hard time with it (and I have seen no evidence that that is actually the case), then the Church (and parents) need to do a better job at teaching girls what it does and DOESN'T mean.

[Northwestcoug]

For being the genius that you are, you sure do have a black and white view of the world (at least when it comes to disparaging church leaders). You don't think it is possible to be the victim of abuse and to still have the ability to choose not to have sex? Abuse comes in many varieties and contexts. Clearly, you seem stuck on the idea that violent rape is the only form of abuse that is relevant here. Abuse doesn't have to be violent, and it doesn't have to be that overly coercive. Someone can be be mentally abusive by putting undue pressure on someone to have sex. Does that rise to the level of coercion? In some cases yes ... in some cases no.

Here's a hypothetical: Suppose your husband is an asshole who treats you like crap if you don't give in to his sexual requests on a regular basis. You have sex with him whenever he demands it because you know what you will have to put up with if you don't. He never physically harms you, and you can get by just fine if you say no. You aren't coerced, but life is just a lot easier when you do what he wants. Now, suppose he starts suggesting that he wants to have a threesome. You are opposed to it morally, but he keeps insisting on it and is making life difficult for you for not agreeing to it. Eventually you decide to do it to make life easier.

Is the husband abusive there? Absolutely. Was the wife forced to do something she considered to be a sin? No. Would she be responsible for giving in, even though she is a victim of abuse? According to Elder Scott ... maybe.

Great analogy. I'm sure Elder Scott was thinking of potential abusive threesomes when he gave this talk. We shouldn't be so black and white when we read his words.

[UVACoug]

This is just piling on, but seriously????

There seems to be two different positions being discussed. One is the suggestion that the Church teaches that rape victims are less worthy or good than non-rape victims. The other is that it is better to die than to be raped without fighting back.

The quotes do not support the first position at all. Some of them do support the second (but not all).

[UVACoug]

Great analogy. I'm sure Elder Scott was thinking of potential abusive threesomes when he gave this talk. We shouldn't be so black and white when we read his words.

You would be surprised what people do. I heard some pretty interesting stories from people I interviewed for baptism on my mission (and I wasn't even supposed to hear them).

It was an extreme hypothetical that I came up with out of thin air to make a point. The point is that it is possible to be the victim of abuse and to still be able to not consent to sexual sin. I don't even understand how this is that controversial.

The idea that he is suggesting that rape victims are responsible for being raped is what is absurd here. That is clearly NOT what he is saying at all. It is completely dishonest to suggest that he is.

[Mrs. Funk]

This is just piling on, but seriously????

Yeah. Not sure how to even to respond to AA's comment. All I read in those passages over and over was that it's better to die than be raped, or you'd better go down with a fight if you expect to be pardoned.

I'm in YW and so is the bishop's wife. She told the girls last week that there are "two sins God doesn't like to forgive: murder and sexual sins." Damaging stuff about sex and virginity gets slung around all the time. It's somewhat amazing to me that anybody graduates from the LDS youth programs without seriously fucked up ideas about sex.

[Jarid in Cedar]

For being the genius that you are, you sure do have a black and white view of the world (at least when it comes to disparaging church leaders). .

Can DH give me an irony check here?

[Pheidippides]

Ummm ... no. When read in context, there is nothing to suggest he is talking about rape victims in that section.



It depends on what you think he is talking about. Is he talking about people that are physically forced or coerced into sexual sin? I don't think he is ... but if you do, then I agree it would be deplorable.

Son, you aren't making any sense whatsoever. I may disagree with every word Indy says in here, but at least I understand him.

Let's break this down a bit. Quote copied at the bottom for convenience (from Lebowski's post, last sentence removed, bolded highlights mine). Please answer the following questions:

1. What does he mean by abuse?
2. Why wouldn't rape be included in abuse?
3. If the act is consensual in some way - any way - why the multiple usage of the word victim?
4. If he's just talking about sexual sin, why use the word abuse at all?
5. Is the sky in your world pink and the sea orange? They both tend to be blue in mine.

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit.

[Northwestcoug]

There seems to be two different positions being discussed. One is the suggestion that the Church teaches that rape victims are less worthy or good than non-rape victims. The other is that it is better to die than to be raped without fighting back.

The quotes do not support the first position at all. Some of them do support the second (but not all).

I disagree:

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no Voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”–Spencer W. Kimball, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS

Why would SWK use the phrase 'more favorable position', if he didn't think a person was less worthy because of rape? Why couldn't he just leave it at 'no condemnation'? Because in his mind, the loss of virtue was so serious (again, more important to keep it than to live in some instances), that even in involuntary rape it still taints you.

[All-American]

Seriously? This is what UVACoug asked:



You honestly don't think ANY of those quotes support the idea that it is better to die than to submit to rape? What am I missing?

I honestly don't think any of those quotes support the idea that it is better to die than to submit to rape. You could use them to support the idea that it is better to die than to "lose one's virtue", but most of those quotes go out of their way to affirm that doing so requires choice, and that where there was no voluntary choice, there is no condemnation.

[All-American]

I disagree:

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no Voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”–Spencer W. Kimball, THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS

Why would SWK use the phrase 'more favorable position', if he didn't think a person was less worthy because of rape? Why couldn't he just leave it at 'no condemnation'? Because in his mind, the loss of virtue was so serious (again, more important to keep it than to live in some instances), that even in involuntary rape it still taints you.

I'd think we would agree that somebody who has been raped has been "injured" and "outraged." But there it is: no condemnation without voluntary participation.