What if you want the church to be true,

[Mark Beesley]

catholic wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate...go ahead..conceive things that people will do to make then more vulnerable to rape...

Ok, with the caveat that I do not believe that it any way excuses the act of the rapist, and that the act only makes the person more vulnerable to rape, does not invite it.

A woman goes to a party and gets drunk. She goes to bed with a frat boy and has sex. They fall asleep. A litltle while later, frat boy wakes up, rolls over, and starts to have sex again. The woman says, "No," but frat boy continues. Sound farfetched? The California Supreme Court wouldn't think so.

[catholic]

A woman goes to a party and gets drunk. She goes to bed with a frat boy and has sex. They fall asleep. A litltle while later, frat boy wakes up, rolls over, and starts to have sex again. The woman says, "No" but frat boy continues. Sound farfetched?

It is rape...and I am a guy saying this...there was no consent for sex, she said 'No'.

(I have a wife that deals in psychology)

Just because a woman says it is ok one time, doesn't mean it is 'all in' all the time.

Are you saying she put herself in a position because of being drunk or having sex or both?

Spin it this way for Mormon thinking...your Mormon wife and you are engaged in a bit of love making. You being the frisky cat that you are, tries something 'different'.

She is not keen but goes along.

The next night she is not too keen on the 'different' thing, but you beg and plead on how great it was, she gives in by the guilt of pressure...

Did she consent or was coerced? Just because she tried something one time doesn't mean she is willing to go back again...

[Observer]

Kind of like a bank leaving its vault unlocked. It may be stupid (vulnerable), but no sin has occurred (responsible). When the thief takes the money it makes no difference whether the money was guarded or unguarded. The thief commits the crime and sin in taking the money. That the vault was carelessly unlocked (vulnerable) makes no difference as far as the sin of the burglar is concerned.

Vulnerability and responsibility are two different things. Responsibility for a rape lies with the rapist --- (when) ---- always.

I think some people have a hard time understanding this simple fact because they are viewing the rape as simply a sexual act, rather than a sole act of aggression and control by one human being over another. They become sidetracked because a sexual act is taking place, and so ignore or minimize the aggressive control nature of the crime.

If a criminal carjacks your car and the two of you begin racing down the freeway above the speed limit, do you bare a bit (even the tiniest) of responsibility for the speeding car you are sitting in? No. The criminal bares full responsibility.

[catholic]

Kind of like a bank leaving its vault unlocked. It may be stupid (vulnerable), but no sin has occurred (responsible). When the thief takes the money it makes no difference whether the money was guarded or unguarded. The thief commits the crime and sin in taking the money. That the vault was carelessly unlocked (vulnerable) makes no difference as far as the sin of the burglar is concerned.

Vulnerability and responsibility are two different things. Responsibility for a rape lies with the rapist --- (when) ---- always.

Very well said......if I only could communicate my thoughts like that!

[Mark Beesley]

catholic wrote:

Are you saying she put herself in a position because of being drunk or having sex or both?

I said, "the act only makes the person more vulnerable to rape."

Now, if you do not believe that the acts of the woman in the hypothetical did not make her more vulnerable to the rape, fine.

Observer wrote:

Kind of like a bank leaving its vault unlocked. It may be stupid (vulnerable), but no sin has occurred (responsible).

Vulnerability and responsibility are two different things. Resonsibility for a rape lies with the rapist --- (when) ---- always.

Agreed. But I think we may be parsing words here. The vulnerablility of the open bank vault is the responsibility of the person who left it open.

[catholic]

Now, if you do not believe that the acts of the woman in the hypothetical did not make her more vulnerable to the rape, fine.

What about the actions of the Mormon woman? is her silence of something displeasing to her her responsibility or vulnerability?

[Sput]

Spin it this way for Mormon thinking...your Mormon wife and you are engaged in a bit of love making.  You being the frisky cat that you are, tries something 'different'.

She is not keen but goes along.

The next night she is not too keen on the 'different' thing, but you beg and plead on how great it was, she gives in by the guilt of pressure...

Did she consent or was coerced?  Just because she tried something one time doesn't mean she is willing to go back again...

o.0

Im so going to burn in the flames of hell.

But anyways as for this whole thing about Pres. Kimbell's statements about protecting your chasity and dieing for it.

Here is info found in the Gospel Library. Abuse----Has References to Victims of Rape

Specifically

Be assured that you are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. You do not need to feel guilt. If you have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether you have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, you are not guilty of sexual sin. Know that you are innocent and that your Heavenly Father loves you.

[Sput]

Now, if you do not believe that the acts of the woman in the hypothetical did not make her more vulnerable to the rape, fine.

What about the actions of the Mormon woman? is her silence of something displeasing to her her responsibility or vulnerability?

o.0

Show me one woman that hasnt been dispeased with something her husband has suggested in the bedroom Anyways we are told that relations between husband and wife as sacred acts and you should act accordingly and with consent and approval of you partner. and no that doesnt mean its a free for all behind closed doors of your bedroom with you spouse. But there is no referee there to tell you no you cant move that leg that way. Or no your not doing that to church standards.

[Observer]

The vulnerablility of the open bank vault is the responsibility of the person who left it open.

Agreed. However the bank vulnerability has no bearing on the crime/sin of the burglar. And the person who left the bank open may be responsible to the bank in some way, but not responsible to God or the fact that the burglar chose to steal.

That the person left the vault unlocked is a mistake. There is no moral or sinful element to their actions.

So I wouldn't have a problem with telling women or girls that it is a mistake (unwise) to get uncontrollably drunk at a party or to walk alone in a dark alley(no different than telling a bank teller it is a mistake to leave the vault unlocked). A mistake, yes. But to say the female bares even the slightest responsibility in cases of rape? No. The victim bares no responsibility...drunk or sober. The choice to rape is always (and only) made by the rapist.

[Mark Beesley]

catholic wrote:

What about the actions of the Mormon woman? is her silence of something displeasing to her her responsibility or vulnerability?

You, playing the devil's advocate, asked me to "conceive things that people will do to make then more vulnerable to rape..." I did so. I am not going to go any further than I have.

[Mark Beesley]

Observer wrote:

So I wouldn't have a problem with telling women or girls that it is a mistake to get uncontrollably drunk at a party or to walk alone in a dark alley. A mistake, yes. But to say the female bares even the slightest responsibility in cases of rape? No. The victim bares no responsibility...drunk or sober. The choice to rape is always (and only) made by the rapist.

We agree.

[Hoppy123]

This is my first time posting to this site but there is something you said that really bothered me regarding this quote "fight for your virtue with your life if needed." First of all I have been a member my whole life and I have never heard this quote but regardless I am responding any ways. I believe that your interpretation is completely flawed. By choosing to interpret this statement the way you do you are implying that a woman who has been raped is a woman who is not

[dimbulb]

"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

Let me make this simple. If my daughters were raped--and heaven help the person that would do such a thing because I'd get a gun--I would tell them that the best way not to get killed is to "cooperate" with the rapist. I would not advise them to "defend their virtue" because it would more likely result in their deaths. And I for one would rather have them live than have them die in the false expectation that they are defending their virtue. Not putting up a violent struggle is not the same as consenting to intercourse.

I am sorry but I cannot agree with this statement from President Kimball. I thought we didn't believe in a prophet's infallibility. Here is one case where I think he was wrong.

[Mark Beesley]

The quote from President Kimball is in Chapter 14 of Miracle of Forgiveness. I recommend reading the entire book for the proper context.

[dimbulb]

The quote from President Kimball is in Chapter 14 of Miracle of Forgiveness. I recommend reading the entire book for the proper context.

I've read the entire book. What exactly is the context that changes the meaning of this quote?

[Mark Beesley]

dimbulb wrote:

I've read the entire book. What exactly is the context that changes the meaning of this quote?

You got me. My statement was a craftily laid snare to get people to read the book. Guess it didn't work.

[Dill Pickles]

Feelings have a part to play in determining truth, after you have done all the studying you can. If you only study the pro side, you are not studying all you can.

from the Pickle jar: I'd like to delve a little deeper into this statement. Are you saying that anyone who hasn't studied both sides of the issues surrounding the church hasn't studied enough? What is enough?

[khurley]

I'm getting in here a little late in the discussion. I just wanted to address Redman. I believe your testimony has been shaken, if not destroyed because it wasn't based on faith. I have seen many people base their religions on facts and knowledge, and they too, struggle with their doubts. In the end, any belief based on information, can be easily swayed. Information changes, facts change, what we KNOW changes over the years. A testimony based on faith has nothing to do with scientific evidence, it has everything to do with a personal revelation from God as to the truth of the gospel. My testimony is based on faith. It doesn't matter how many documents, accounts or scientific evidence you present me with, I know the church is true, I know it with my soul and my heart, not with my mind. If you try to reason the truthfulness of the gospel, you'll find plenty of reasoning to contradict it. You're not going to find all the answers to your questions, I don't think you're meant to, the Lord wanted us to have faith...a testimony built on proven facts isn't much of a testimony at all.

[dimbulb]

khurley,

I hope this doesn't sound mean, but how can one have faith in something that has no basis in fact? You have to have some information on which to base your faith, so saying that redman is basing his on knowledge, not faith, makes little sense.

I think the issue here is more that some people need fewer facts to have faith. Others can have faith even when the facts refute that faith. It's not an either/or situation.

[khurley]

I didn't say that there should be "no basis on fact". Only that it should be based first upon faith.

[dimbulb]

I didn't say that there should be "no basis on fact". Only that it should be based first upon faith.

I still disagree with you. You have to have some fact on which to place your faith. Otherwise, it would be perfectly rational to have faith that the universe is ruled by a giant purple dinosaur.

Faith without reason is not only dead, but it's dangerous.

[Dill Pickles]

I didn't say that there should be "no basis on fact". Only that it should be based first upon faith.

from the Pickle jar: you didn't address the issue, khurley. If that which one has faith in has no basis in fact, how can one first have faith in it? If the gospel has no basis in fact, how can anyone have faith in it?

[khurley]

Faith without reason is not only dead, but it's dangerous

You keep doing an all or nothing thing here. I never implied all faith no reason, all belief, no knowledge, only that in the end, if your beliefs aren't based in faith, they are much more easily shaken. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. My husband, for example, likes to read all the latest findings, looking to "prove" his faith is true. However, as soon as something springs up, take DNA evidence for instance, his beliefs are shaken to the core. I, however, am not at all troubled by DNA evidences, or any other evidences, because my faith has been based on more than what I can prove or find in books, it's based on personal revelation, and no scientific studies are going to disprove that.

[asbestosman]

I didn't say that there should be "no basis on fact".  Only that it should be based first upon faith.

from the Pickle jar: you didn't address the issue, khurley. If that which one has faith in has no basis in fact, how can one first have faith in it? If the gospel has no basis in fact, how can anyone have faith in it?

To me faith is assurance you get when you try the experiment of Alma 32. It is also the act of testing the word to see if it is good. It is the will to test and also the knowledge of test results.

Faith requires a few steps in the dark, but I don't think it should ever be completely blind or divided from facts and reality.

[dimbulb]

I, however, am not at all troubled by DNA evidences, or any other evidences, because my faith has been based on more than what I can prove or find in books, it's based on personal revelation, and no scientific studies are going to disprove that.

I'll repeat Tal Bachman's question, then. If it wasn't true, how would you know? You seem to have set up a system where you don't have to deal with knowledge and truth but rather on what you feel. And you are right; no facts will ever disprove what you feel.