Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[CardiacCoug]

Because there is a difference ... and he is clearly not talking about rape (contrary to your misrepresentation). Rape (with the exception of statutory rape) implies a lack of choice. Being the victim of abuse does not. A victim of abuse may or may not have a choice to have sex.

Sexual abuse is sometimes used as a euphemism for rape, but not all sexual abuse IS rape. There are varying degrees of abuse and this is clearly what Elder Scott was talking about. You can't read the entire talk without understanding that. Your interpretation contradicts everything else he is saying ... and everything the Church teaches about agency.

I think the way you jump to defend and in fact totally restate what RGS said isn't necessary. Would you agree with this approach?:

RGS sent the wrong message here -- the message that abuse victims (maybe even sexual abuse or rape) often bear some responsibility for the abuse and that guilty feelings that abuse victims have come from God. The Church does NOT in fact teach this and teaches that abuse victims are by definition completely innocent -- they are VICTIMS of abuse. This might be the reason that I'm pretty sure he hasn't said anything similar to this in 20 intervening years. He was wrong.

Doesn't that interpretation make more sense than going into hypotheticals about threesomes?

[ERCougar]

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.

[SoCalCoug]

Here's Webster's definition of "virtue" from the 1828 version of his dictionary:

Well, I see someone's late to the party.

[SoCalCoug]

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.

Tex? Is that you?

[Northwestcoug]

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

Hmmm. I wonder which one I'm misunderstanding.
Seriously though, as an intellectually minded middle-aged male, I read that phrase to mean he can't leave the 'no condemnation' phrase alone. Loss of virtue/chastity/whatever it means in 19th century English is so serious that it taints even the innocent.

[Jarid in Cedar]

He isn't talking about rape. The definition of rape implies a lack of choice. You cannot have responsibility for something you did not choose. That is a basic, fundamental principle of the gospel. He is clearly saying that a victim MAY be responsible in certain circumstances. He is not saying that all victims of abuse are responsible for their victimhood. That is absurd on its face. Being a victim does not imply coercion, as has already been pointed out.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to tell you. It is not that complicated ... son.

That statement is utterly ridiculous. Lord help you if you cannot see that.

[Pheidippides]

He isn't talking about rape. The definition of rape implies a lack of choice. You cannot have responsibility for something you did not choose. That is a basic, fundamental principle of the gospel. He is clearly saying that a victim MAY be responsible in certain circumstances. He is not saying that all victims of abuse are responsible for their victimhood. That is absurd on its face. Being a victim does not imply coercion, as has already been pointed out.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to tell you. It is not that complicated ... son.

Ooh, so the "son" needle did hurt. Good. You're not just a mindless troll, like some of us have thought. But you didn't answer a single question and cleverly threw out a strawman instead (I'll show you which part if you were less clever and more oblivious).

I agree that what RGS said is absurd on its face, however, and is pretty hard to reconcile with any principle of goodness I can think of. You should now feel free to resume trying to prove that black is white, and watch out for the zebra crossing.

[The Fourth Nephite]

What are you getting at here?

So if it's not just rape then it makes sense that God will prompt abuse victims that they in fact bear some responsibility for being abused?

Hey, maybe the victim was dressing all whorish and flaunting her knees in public. As a man, I know that I can't control myself at all whenever I see some bare shoulders, and if something unfortunate happens, I think we should blame the victim. Technically, I mean the other victim, since I'm a victim, too.

[UVACoug]

You're the lawyer, but isn't sexual abuse just sort of a euphemism for rape? I don't understand why you keep emphasizing the distinction between abuse and rape.

Because there is a difference ... and he is clearly not talking about rape (contrary to your misrepresentation). Rape (with the exception of statutory rape) implies a lack of choice. Being the victim of abuse does not. A victim of abuse may or may not have a choice to have sex.

Sexual abuse is sometimes used as a euphemism for rape, but not all sexual abuse IS rape. There are varying degrees of abuse and this is clearly what Elder Scott was talking about. You can't read the entire talk without understanding that. Your interpretation contradicts everything else he is saying ... and everything the Church teaches about agency.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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.

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

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.

[UVACoug]

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad the 'no condemnation' phrase is in there. But I just wonder why he had to modify the sentiment as he did.

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

[CardiacCoug]

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.

You're the lawyer, but isn't sexual abuse just sort of a euphemism for rape? I don't understand why you keep emphasizing the distinction between abuse and rape.

[SoCalCoug]

Maybe one or more of the resident needlenecks could elucidate on possible changes to the popular meaning of "virtue" between circa 1830 and 2013. We could have a gay old time learning about our mother tongue.

Here's Webster's definition of "virtue" from the 1828 version of his dictionary:

virtue

VIRTUE, n. vur'tu. [L. virtus, from vireo, or its root. See Worth.] The radical sense is strength, from straining, stretching, extending. This is the primary sense of L. vir, a man.]

1. Strength; that substance or quality of physical bodies, by which they act and produce effects on other bodies. In this literal and proper sense, we speak of the virtue or virtues of plants in medicine, and the virtues of drugs. In decoctions, the virtues of plants are extracted. By long standing in the open air, the virtues are lost.
2. Bravery valor. This was the predominant signification of virtus among the Romans.
Trust to thy single virtue.
[This sense is nearly or quite obsolete.]
3. Moral goodness; the practice of moral duties and the abstaining from vice, or a conformity of life and conversation to the moral law. In this sense, virtue may be, and in many instances must be, distinguished from religion. The practice of moral duties merely from motives of convenience, or from compulsion, or from regard to reputation, is virtue, as distinct from religion. The practice of moral duties from sincere love to God and his laws, is virtue and religion. In this sense it is true,
That virtue only makes our bliss below.
Virtue is nothing but voluntary obedience to truth.
4. A particular moral excellence; as the virtue of temperance, of chastity, of charity.
Remember all his virtues.
5. Acting power; something efficacious.
Jesus, knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned - Mark 3.
6. Secret agency; efficacy without visible or material action.
She moves the body which she doth possess,
Yet no part toucheth, but by virtue's touch.
7. Excellence; or that which constitutes value and merit.
- Terence, who thought the sole grace and virtue of their fable, the sticking in of sentences.
8. One of the orders of the celestial hierarchy.
Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.
9. Efficacy; power.
He used to travel through Greece by virtue of this fable, which procured him reception in all the towns.
10. Legal efficacy or power; authority. A man administers the laws by virtue of a commission.
In virtue, in consequence; by the efficacy or authority.
This they shall attain, partly in virtue of the promise of God, and partly in virtue of piety.

[UVACoug]

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.

For crying out loud ... read the next DAMN sentence. Geez.

[UVACoug]

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.

He isn't talking about rape. The definition of rape implies a lack of choice. You cannot have responsibility for something you did not choose. That is a basic, fundamental principle of the gospel. He is clearly saying that a victim MAY be responsible in certain circumstances. He is not saying that all victims of abuse are responsible for their victimhood. That is absurd on its face. Being a victim does not imply coercion, as has already been pointed out.

If you can't understand this, then I don't know what else to tell you. It is not that complicated ... son.