bluebell

You've brought up how much you hate the 'all men are rapists' issue so much that there's just no way it's believable that you don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not seeing the dispassion from you at all. I'm seeing a lot of passion. Edit to add: I posted these two replies right after I read your replies to me so had no idea that you and Calm had already gone rounds on this topic, sorry as I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse.

I get the feeling that you believe you are being rational and unbiased in this thread but from the outside looking in, I'm not seeing it. You seem to be as passionate as the rest of us are on the topic.

Such promising young men.... Judging a rape accusation by focusing on the woman's past (such as how drunk she was or what kind of girl she was to be where she was when the assault happened, etc) while focusing on the man's (men's) future is the epitome of rape culture in this country. Has what won't be restored to Jane Doe if she was actually raped been discussed yet? Or do only the men's futures matter.

I find the history behind section 132 really fascinating. I loved these podcasts from the Church History Matters guys (faithful institute teachers) because they are very light on editorializing and heavy on giving us the sources whether faith promoting or not. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000735385039 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/church-history-matters/id1676164770?i=1000616792568

Those are good questions to ponder. Thinking about it, my first instinct is to ask the question, are we morally bound to accept all verdicts that come through a court of law? What about people who are found guilty but actually were innocent and exonerated (as proven later through DNA)? Would it have been wrong for those who believed in their innocence to rail against the legal system at the time they were incarcerated? If the answer is no, then it could not be wrong to rail against the legal system if someone were found innocent that we believed was guilty. From that perspective I don't think we are under any obligation to replace our well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone based solely on what a judge or 12 people's interpretation of the evidence decides. Legally, yes they have been found innocent (or guilty) and I do believe we have a duty to support the system that made the judgement. But it's not a perfect system and as long as innocent people are found guilty and guilty people are found innocent I don't believe we are under any personal obligation to agree with the outcome of a trial. Especially not a rape trial where much (if not most) of the evidence that would be put forth could be subjective in nature.

I don't, because this discussion is not a part of the legal process so no presumption of innocence is necessary. I also don't believe that starting out in favor of those accused rapists serves any good purpose here in this discussion. In a courtroom, of course, but not here. In this discussion those men are not owed the benefit of the doubt. I believe it would be morally wrong to begin this discussion by automatically elevating the men's position over that of Jane Doe's, which is exactly what we would have to do if we started with the presumption that they are telling the truth and she is lying. That puts her at a deficit and them at an advantage in this discussion that I don't believe is justified or reasonable. Edit to add: Because I know you are fond of AI summaries, it has a good one on why I don't believe the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is valid in most social interactions (including this board): The principle is institutional: As noted in legal analyses like those from the Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the presumption of innocence is designed specifically to restrain the massive coercive power of the government. Private citizens do not possess police powers or state authority, so the same rules do not apply to private judgment or social consequences

Can you share why you believe the presumption of innocence is important for a message board? A message board serves none of the purposes of the legal system for example, so I'm unsure why you believe it should track the principles. I agree we can certainly look at the evidence and share opinions about it's weight, relevance, accuracy, etc, but that is very different than finding the truth isn't it? Is there anyway that we here could discuss this rape case and learn the actual truth of what happened through our discussion? We can't really do the same though. A tithing lawsuit with all the direct and forensic evidence is a completely different animal than a rape case, where the evidence is largely circumstantial and based on inference, right? This would be especially true in an acquaintance or date-rape scenario where proving consent when the interaction between everyone involved started out as voluntary is incredibly complex and much of the time based solely or mostly on 'he said-she said' testimony. On top of all of that you have to add the deep-seated and millenia-old cultural biases that exist surrounding female sexuality to the mix--best illustrated by the whole 'what were you wearing' theme we are all very well aware of--which adds an entire other level of complexity to achieving justice that just does not exist in financial litigation. So I reiterate that we cannot do the same when discussing this matter as we could when discussing the tithing lawsuits. I'm sincerely surprised that you think we could.

Not in the sense of the us legal system. In the sense of posting on this message board. Do we have any hope of getting to the truth here in our discussion? You said that for you, posting here is about getting to the truth. I'm asking if you think it's possible for you to get to the truth in this discussion.

In a sense, it completely does presume that the victim was harmed, as it should. An investigation done right should allow the police to determine the validity of the victims accusations, but in the beginning yes the police should presume that the victim is telling the truth just as they do with victims of any other crime. Police don't start out neutral in any other crime so why should they start out that way with rape? Treating all evidence as if it has the same weight, and assuming all possibilities are equal to probabilities also stacks the deck and makes a possibility alone evidence until itself.

They would (and they have in other rape cases). Unfortunately, most don't have the knowledge necessary to provide a reasoned assessment of this kind of evidence and they unintentionally end up victim blaming or victim shaming because of their ignorance. This website is very short and explains some of the different ways that a person being sexually assaulted might legitimately respond in the moment. It's doesn't include all the different ways, just some typical ones. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-help/tools-for-victims-and-survivors/understanding-your-response/fight-or-flight/ This website discusses the many legitimate reasons that a woman might not report a rape right away. Sometimes it takes a woman a while to even be able to admit to herself that she was sexually assaulted (this most often happens when the rapist was someone that she knew or when she thinks that people aren't going to believe her and she knows she's going to suffer a second time from the consequences of reporting it. It takes a while for many women to weigh the pros and cons of speaking out). https://jacksonhealth.org/blog/2018-01-25-five-reasons-sexual-assault/

Is it possible to get to the truth in regards to this allegation? And if it is possible to get to the truth here on this message board, what would that accomplish outside of the message board? (I guess I'm asking, how viable is your stated goal and what is the positive outcome you are expecting should you achieve it)

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma. That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data. (but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

I'll let mustardseed speak for herself but I think you are misunderstanding what she is seeking here.

I'm explaining it really poorly, largely because I didn't understand it completely I'm sure. But the premise (as I remember it) was that the fall introduced the Law of Entropy into play. Once entropy entered creation, there is no stopping it. Everything will eventually entropy and decay into disorder if left to its own devices. The suffering--and everything else that comes with mortality--is just entropy in action. The Plan of Salvation is the only way to stop the entropy and give us access to the kind of life that God and Christ have--one without the effects of entropy. Justin Ritter wrote an article about a lecture that the physicist David Derrick gave called "Time, Entropy, and Faith Connected" (I haven't been able to find a transcript of the lecture itself so Ritter's summary is the best I can do) where Ritter explained that Derrick said:

I’ve never heard it before. The idea of excommunication being a way to start over makes sense to me but I agree the reboot analogy seems off to me somehow too. But like you I can’t really explain why. Maybe something to do with how a reboot is primarily about starting again but an excommunication isn’t, though that can be one of the possible side effects?

That could be part of the disconnect because we’re specifically talking about rape in this thread. Mustardseed was specifically talking about being able to emote as it concerns the topic of her (as a woman) and rape.

I like the talk. I don’t know how to be grateful in all circumstances when the definition of gratitude is to be thankful. I don’t know how to be thankful for trials. He gives some examples but they didn’t seem to show people being thankful as much as they showed people praising or worshipping God despite hardships. Being loyal and being thankful seem like two separate things to me. (just my thoughts I don’t expect you to have answers)

This seems to be the crux of the issue. Many males struggle with the topic because their primary focus is “what if I get falsely accused of rape, how would I want people to behave towards me?” Women do the same only the worry is “what if I’m raped…” There is a 2-10% that one of the men posting here will be accused of rape. There is a 24% chance one of the women on this forum will be raped. (And statistically chances are very high some of us posting here already have been).

I’ve been feeling that lately, about being thankful for blessings and how that can feel like being thankful that I have been given things other people haven’t. And then I don’t really know what to do with trails because it’s like acknowledging that you aren’t being blessed during those times.

I haven't watched the video but I've thought the same before so I think he does have a point (in what you've described him saying). Yes, we are currently in a culture that is embracing turning villains into victims and heroes into villains in our entertainment. I remember watching the series Supernatural (silly fun) and noticing that the angels were almost always the bad guys and the demons (including the "king of hell"--not lucifer) were the good guys. I think we would be dumb to think that being immersed in that kind of entertainment doesn't have an impact on how we view the world and who we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to and who we aren't.

I saw a reel where someone was talking about a time that he was pleading for a specific blessing in the temple and a thought hit him that said "If I told you this blessing was never going to come in this life, would you still be here? Would you still serve me?" That thought caught me up short. Do I believe I'm owed blessings and is that the only reason that I do the things I believe God has asked me to do? Is that why trust feels hard sometimes? Those are rhetorical questions that I'm pondering.

I can only see the difference when I compare it to the way that I manage my own children. I know the difference between when and why I intervene on their behalf and when I don't**, but it's not a difference that I've always been able to articulate to my children (or that they have been able to understand even if I could articulate it). So intellectually I get that a similar structure of parenthood is going to exist between God and me. It all makes sense on paper that way. But mentally and emotionally, that really doesn't ever make me feel any better when life is in the thick of it. So while I can see how the differences are there, that knowledge rarely makes me feel any better in the moment. Sometimes after the fact it does but not always. **Obviously there are some trials I would always intervene if I could (and those are the usually the ones where I can't intervene in any significant way anyway)

Unique is the only way that I can find to describe it as well.

I think that I struggle to trust God because I struggle to feel safe in His care. Does that make more sense? It's hard to talk about such nebulous concepts sometimes.

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them. In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.