Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[CardiacCoug]

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

Look at this UVA: AA here is very much a TBM but knows he's not obligated to defend every bit of semi-canonical craziness he encounters. Of course the Church corporation is never going to admit an error, but at an individual level it's fine to acknowledge errors. If Church leaders stop saying something and it never made a damn bit of sense in the first place, then I think you're on very safe ground to just say, "Church leaders were wrong. We were wrong. We now have greater light and knowledge."

When they're doing gay Temple marriages 50 years from now that's exactly what people will be saying.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Most often, the victim is innocent. I believe that is beyond dispute. Where a choice is voluntary, and not made out of fear or compulsion, you may bear a degree of responsibility for it. No argument from me there. All in all, I think you could make the case that this quote is insensitive, but not that being raped is a sin, or that it is better to die than to be raped.

I am struggling to see an example where a victim is making any voluntary choices. RGS was directing his talk to people who were abused as children/teens. To make that statement to that group is beyond insensitive, it is deplorable.

Two people very close to me have been victims of sexual abuse(one as a 5-10 year old child and the other a preteen, age 11-13). Both felt a degree of responsibility for not saying anything about the abuse to their parents. Both were ashamed that they didn't do anything to stop it as they were abused multiple times over several years by the same person. They voluntarily ended up alone with that person on many occasions. The abuse became pretty much an expected routine whenever that person was around. There was never any fear of retribution against them from that person. They simply became resigned that this was how things were going to be when that person was around. They both have said that they didn't tell anyone because they were too ashamed to tell anyone and guilt paralyzed them whenever that person made advances. No fear, no compulsion. What degree of responsibility would RGS assume that they held?

[grapevine]

From CB Ed Kimball's bio on his Fathers Presidency is more correct than the Book of Mormon. I even read the CD. Though CD got lost when computer got fixed. Wish I could bye CD only. But on certain page says that J. Reuben Clarks words were misunderstood and talking about voluntary loss. Than said church leaders were not to decide how much the victim resisted.

Another interesting one as Young Missionary Marion G. Romney's own father at depot said same thing when Marion departed. Marion thought he was crazy. Talk Dave gave as President of Y of I. Interesting. http://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Tr..._07_Bednar.htm

[SoCalCoug]

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

Which really sucks when you have an entire religion hanging on your words and being counseled all their lives to listen and sustain you.

[SoCalCoug]

I mean no such thing, as I am sure you know.

Because you're being intellectually dishonest about what those quotes say and imply.

[All-American]

One who is forcibly raped who struggles against her rapist adequately, you mean.

I mean no such thing, as I am sure you know.

[All-American]

and props to him for that. but what the hell was he thinking in the first place? what good is coming from that statement? is there a large contingent of abuse victims that need to finally own up to their role in the abuse?

geez...I'd have a hard time excusing that statement from my crazy neighbor, but an apostle? heh.

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

[SoCalCoug]

Apparently any context, since (as the quotes quite forcefully state), one who is forcibly raped does not lose their virtue/chastity.

One who is forcibly raped who struggles against her rapist adequately, you mean.

[ERCougar]

I think he has, as CardiacCoug's post implies.

and props to him for that. but what the hell was he thinking in the first place? what good is coming from that statement? is there a large contingent of abuse victims that need to finally own up to their role in the abuse?

geez...I'd have a hard time excusing that statement from my crazy neighbor, but an apostle? heh.

[All-American]

In what context does having to choose between losing your life and losing your virtue/chastity not implicate rape?

Apparently any context, since (as the quotes quite forcefully state), one who is forcibly raped does not lose their virtue/chastity.

[SoCalCoug]

When two sentences next to each other seem to completely contradict each other ... you are probably not understanding one of them correctly.

Actually, three consecutive sentences in that quote are contradictory. But I'm not sure that it's an interpretation isuse.

[All-American]

one of the real struggles rape and incest victims can have, and not uncommonly, is difficulty not blaming themselves. this can be particularly problematic in incest cases, where the victim may blame herself for not adequately refusing or even in some cases, having experienced some sexual satisfaction from the experience, 'consenting' to it (not fully understanding that 'consent' is not even possible). RGS' words are absolutely the last thing these victims need to hear. he needs to shut the hell up. really.

I think he has, as CardiacCoug's post implies.

[SoCalCoug]

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.

In what context does having to choose between losing your life and losing your virtue/chastity not implicate rape?

[All-American]

The RGS Cardiac quoted implies that, in some cases of abuse, there is some voluntary choice:

Most often, the victim is innocent. I believe that is beyond dispute. Where a choice is voluntary, and not made out of fear or compulsion, you may bear a degree of responsibility for it. No argument from me there. All in all, I think you could make the case that this quote is insensitive, but not that being raped is a sin, or that it is better to die than to be raped.

[SoCalCoug]

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.

Holy shit, but that's disgusting. I'd take my daughter out of Young Women if she was being taught that.