When The Prophet Speaks, The Thinking Has Been Done?

[why me]

If keeping the family happy is a good goal,and it is, then I would have had a civil ceremony first and they could have had their party.You could have waited a year for a sealing.Might even have been better give the number of marriages that fail within the first year or so. The intense passions of youth and bull headed leaders forced you into a no win situation. After 50+ years in the church I have come to the realization that time is not as big a deal to God as it is to us.

Actually, it may work differently the other way around. However, since one is first married in the temple, and then have a ring ceremony is the best answer to the problem. The temple ceremony is so fast that if one blinks they may miss it. I would recommend a ring ceremony so all the nonmembers, less actives and active family members can see the couple exchange rings in the same day as the temple wedding. That may work.

[why me]

http://www.lds.org/e...-abuse?lang=eng

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. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of JesusChrist can provide a complete cure.

Now, if you ladies would please help me out and explain the circumstances where someone who is a victim of sexual abuse had it coming....

I don't see sexual abuse mentioned at all. Also, a degree of responsiblity can also be present if both couples are abusing each other. I have seen these types of relationships. They are both addicted to abusing the other. Also, many men are also abused.

Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure.

I have highlighted the relevant from the same text you cherry picked from. It came right after your quotation.

Edited February 13, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/e...-abuse?lang=eng

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. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of JesusChrist can provide a complete cure.

Now, if you ladies would please help me out and explain the circumstances where someone who is a victim of sexual abuse had it coming....

Well, if you would first point out where it says the victim "had it coming", I might try.

I suspect that a woman in counseling for domestic abuse would be told by her therapist she needs to take responsibility if she refuses to press charges and instead makes excuses for the man or claims she is just clumsy, etc. or has the opportunity to leave to a safe and supportive place and still chooses instead to stay in the abusive situation. Would you condemn a therapist who suggested that she take responsibility in such a way? Would you accept the possibility that any woman who refuses to consider her own actions/responses to abusive situations if she chooses to remain in them is doing herself some harm that might be avoided if she instead recognized that she had the ability to do something about her situation by removing herself from it or removing the abuser through working with the police?

Edited February 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Gordon]

Well, if you would first point out where it says the victim "had it coming", I might try.

I suspect that a woman in counseling for domestic abuse would be told by her therapist she needs to take responsibility if she refuses to press charges and instead makes excuses for the man or claims she is just clumsy, etc. or has the opportunity to leave to a safe and supportive place and still chooses instead to stay in the abusive situation. Would you condemn a therapist who suggested that she take responsibility in such a way? Would you accept the possibility that any woman who refuses to consider her own actions/responses to abusive situations if she chooses to remain in them is doing herself some harm that might be avoided if she instead recognized that she had the ability to do something about her situation by removing herself from it or removing the abuser through working with the police?

I haven't been here for awhile, but is this the same crap that detractors spew about how LDS leaders condemn the victim?? Does anyone read in context anymore...?

Edited February 13, 2012 by Gordon

[why me]

Well, if you would first point out where it says the victim "had it coming", I might try.

I suspect that a woman in counseling for domestic abuse would be told by her therapist she needs to take responsibility if she refuses to press charges and instead makes excuses for the man or claims she is just clumsy, etc. or has the opportunity to leave to a safe and supportive place and still chooses instead to stay in the abusive situation. Would you condemn a therapist who suggested that she take responsibility in such a way? Would you accept the possibility that any woman who refuses to consider her own actions/responses to abusive situations if she chooses to remain in them is doing herself some harm that might be avoided if she instead recognized that she had the ability to do something about her situation by removing herself from it or removing the abuser through working with the police?

I think what we have here is a poster who seems to have misread what the GA said. I have seen this before. They hear something on a exmormon forum, get excited, begin to condemn the patriarchy of the church, convince themselves that GAs and church members are nuts, etc. However, when one sees the article in context, it seems that the speaker was very concerned for the abused.

[why me]

I haven't been here for awhile, but is this the same crap that detractors spew about how LDS leaders condemn the victim?? Does anyone read in context anymore...?

Actually, most critics cherry pick from exmormon forums, get excited and negative about the church, condemn the church, leave the church and cement themselves in their new world view. Context can be meaningless of internet surfers.

[Gordon]

Actually, most critics cherry pick from exmormon forums, get excited and negative about the church, condemn the church, leave the church and cement themselves in their new world view. Context can be meaningless of internet surfers.

You may not remember me, but I have been around for some time, and I remember you (as well as many others), and yes, this same ole' crap just continues to go around...

No, women (in context of the statement) aren't to be accountable for such actions.

I guess nothing will ever change...

[Areabird]

You're letting the GA's words off the hook....

http://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

Victim blaming effectively states that a victim deserved the crime that they

endured. Crime is often about violence, power, and control; it needs to be clear

that no one deserves it. Most importantly, the victim blame approach is neither

effective in resolving problems of violence, nor in protecting the victim from further

victimization, nor in protecting future generations from continuing the cycle of

abuse.

24

Therefore, it is important that we shift the focus of our blame from the victim of the

crime to the perpetrator, in order to ensure that the offender takes responsibility for

the crime that they have committed. One way of assuring that an offender is held

accountable for their actions is to have a community response. This can occur

through the police, courts, schools, clergy, health care providers, and social service

agencies. The justice system and social agencies need to work together in order to

promote offender accountability, while at the same time helping victims of violence

to recover from what has happened to them

[Storm Rider]

You're letting the GA's words off the hook....

http://crcvc.ca/docs...tim_blaming.pdf

Victim blaming effectively states that a victim deserved the crime that they

endured. Crime is often about violence, power, and control; it needs to be clear

that no one deserves it. Most importantly, the victim blame approach is neither

effective in resolving problems of violence, nor in protecting the victim from further

victimization, nor in protecting future generations from continuing the cycle of

abuse.

24

Therefore, it is important that we shift the focus of our blame from the victim of the

crime to the perpetrator, in order to ensure that the offender takes responsibility for

the crime that they have committed. One way of assuring that an offender is held

accountable for their actions is to have a community response. This can occur

through the police, courts, schools, clergy, health care providers, and social service

agencies. The justice system and social agencies need to work together in order to

promote offender accountability, while at the same time helping victims of violence

to recover from what has happened to them

I take it that you refuse to hear, read, or listen to any other position but your own. Keeping one's head in the sand is not a way of learning, but it is sure that you will never change your mind. It also means that there is no reason to converse. Cheers,

[Nemesis]

You're letting the GA's words off the hook....

http://crcvc.ca/docs...tim_blaming.pdf

Victim blaming effectively states that a victim deserved the crime that they

endured. Crime is often about violence, power, and control; it needs to be clear

that no one deserves it. Most importantly, the victim blame approach is neither

effective in resolving problems of violence, nor in protecting the victim from further

victimization, nor in protecting future generations from continuing the cycle of

abuse.

24

Therefore, it is important that we shift the focus of our blame from the victim of the

crime to the perpetrator, in order to ensure that the offender takes responsibility for

the crime that they have committed. One way of assuring that an offender is held

accountable for their actions is to have a community response. This can occur

through the police, courts, schools, clergy, health care providers, and social service

agencies. The justice system and social agencies need to work together in order to

promote offender accountability, while at the same time helping victims of violence

to recover from what has happened to them

You are obviously not here for discussion but to bomb throw. Enjoy the suspension.

Nemesis

[Jeff K.]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/05/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng

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. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of JesusChrist can provide a complete cure.

Now, if you ladies would please help me out and explain the circumstances where someone who is a victim of sexual abuse had it coming....

Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result. Some people seek to deny insanity. If the speaker had stated "get help" and nothing more. It would have been empty rhetoric. By specifically showing how one can get help to change behavior in order to avoid being a victim, the speaker is condemned. Responsibility isn't a closed loop or pie in which taking responsibility for nor thing diminishes the other persons responsibility for their actions. Such thought just idiotic.

A person who consistently enters bad relationships must break the pattern. Take responsibility for their destiny. And seek help. To deny this is to enable the abuse, and condemn someone to a downward spiral. It seems the poster would gladly have some destroyed to prove an incorrect rhetorical point. I am glad most people aren't as uncaring.

[Duncan]

If keeping the family happy is a good goal,and it is, then I would have had a civil ceremony first and they could have had their party.You could have waited a year for a sealing.Might even have been better give the number of marriages that fail within the first year or so. The intense passions of youth and bull headed leaders forced you into a no win situation. After 50+ years in the church I have come to the realization that time is not as big a deal to God as it is to us.

Dig it! Blackstrap of the First Quorum of the Seventy will now address us! I'd sustain that!

[Calm]

The justice system and social agencies need to work together in order to

promote offender accountability, while at the same time helping victims of violence

to recover from what has happened to them

Can't happen unless the victim stands up for herself (or himself) first though in many cases due to legal restrictions and other things.

Edited February 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

No, women (in context of the statement) aren't to be accountable for such actions.

Talk about not reading in context. How about actually reading what it says. It talks about responsibility, not accountability. Responsibility applies to recognizing the situation you are in and the effect it has on yourself and your children and that you do have the power to change it. Words have meanings and those who like to criticize have a tendency to throw out words they think are the same but have entirely different meanings.

[wenglund]

But in what sense can someone trust God and also disobey the men running the LDS Church?

In the eyes of Mormons, this is not possible because the two are seen as synonymous.

The Mormon Church is highly legalistic and there is usually no room for debate. A perfect example of this took place when I was married. We found out at the last minute, after the wedding had been planned and paid for, that we were unable to have a civil marriage so my non-LDS family could attend... UNLESS I waited another full year to have a temple marriage. Of course, the rule book states something entirely different in Brazil. I tried to reason with the Stake President but to no avail. He kept saying the same stupid thing over and over, that it is in the rule book and he isn't allowed to make exceptions.

I was then warned not to disobey. I was told that if I had a civil wedding the day after my temple sealing, that I would have to attend a disciplinary meeting. Again, what's the logic behind all of this? How come thousands of Mormons in Brazil can do this every year but the second I step on US soil, the rules change and it becomes a great sin?

No room for discussion.

The thinking has been done. The law had been laid down. Just obey and shut up.

Do you still consider yourself as someone who trusts God more than man? I ask because if not then you may represent your own polar extreme and may not be in a postion to lecture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 13, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

But in what sense can someone trust God and also disobey the men running the LDS Church?

In the eyes of Mormons, this is not possible because the two are seen as synonymous.

The Mormon Church is highly legalistic and there is usually no room for debate. A perfect example of this took place when I was married. We found out at the last minute, after the wedding had been planned and paid for, that we were unable to have a civil marriage so my non-LDS family could attend... UNLESS I waited another full year to have a temple marriage. Of course, the rule book states something entirely different in Brazil. I tried to reason with the Stake President but to no avail. He kept saying the same stupid thing over and over, that it is in the rule book and he isn't allowed to make exceptions.

I was then warned not to disobey. I was told that if I had a civil wedding the day after my temple sealing, that I would have to attend a disciplinary meeting. Again, what's the logic behind all of this? How come thousands of Mormons in Brazil can do this every year but the second I step on US soil, the rules change and it becomes a great sin?

No room for discussion.

The thinking has been done. The law had been laid down. Just obey and shut up.

Isn't it interesting how often it is that the critics who tend to beat the Church with the "the thinking is over" stick, seem to be the most closed minded and dogmatic critics, or in other words the critics for whom there is no debate and the thinking is done.

This ought not be surprising because, not only are they projecting (people will at times decry most sharply in others the attributes most pronounced in themselves--it is an extention of self-loathing), but they mistakenly apply their overly literalistic and fundamentalistic interpretations onto the statements in question from church leaders .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 13, 2012 by wenglund

[sethpayne]

Seth, you openly provide a context for all to see by telling all of us you are a heretic. It would appear that you are comfortable being known by that and consider it appropriate. Then you share that the Holy Spirit has told you that the brethren were wrong on something (btw, you did read my posts above yes?). As a heretic I remain interested in what it was? I am sure you experience is not unique, was not the first time such a thing occured, and it will not be the last time etiher. No need to get defensive; I was not intending to offend.

Sorry my brother, didn't mean to be defensive.

Without getting into specifics, I will say that there have been a few times when the Spirit has prompted me to do things that may not perfectly align with counsel from the GAs. I think that is what the Spirit is for. It is impossible for the GAs to instruct the Saints on everything and there are no two circumstances which are alike. Thus, I find that the Bretheren often offer up good counsel but that the counsel may need to be implemented or viewed in a unique way depending on individual circumstances. I think it is somewhat like being too legaistic, like the Pharisees, as opposed to focusing on the spirit of the law, as Jesus encouraged. It is really easy when someone tells us exactly what to do. Much more difficult to take good principles and apply them in faith.

Even my Mom, who is about as non-heretical as you can be has chosen to do things a certain way, based on her own circumstances, even when it may be *slightly* at odds with what the Bretheren have said.

To speak more broadly, I do know LDS women who need to work outside the home. After prayer and fasting, and not without a struggle, some of these women have chosen to work -- even though it goes against the counsel of ETB. Just one example ... but illustrative I think.

[why me]

You may not remember me, but I have been around for some time, and I remember you (as well as many others), and yes, this same ole' crap just continues to go around...

No, women (in context of the statement) aren't to be accountable for such actions.

I guess nothing will ever change...

I think that when you read the full quotation the context is important. And context can often be ignore by critics when it doesn't fit their purposes. And this is a case in point. Also, the article linked was written in the early nineties. I think that the exlds must be the only ones to go back in time and cherry pick what a leader said to make a negative point even though as in this case, it is now 20 years ago. I find this to be amazing.

People are in abusive situations for many reasons. And certainly men and women who are being abused must also take responsibility for the abuse if they decide not to leave. And I think that this is what he meant. Now if I were being abused and found myself trapped without realizing that I was trapped, what this GA said may help me realize it and to escape from my oppressive situation.

[Calm]

I think that the exlds must be the only ones to go back in time and cherry pick what a leader said to make a negative point even though as in this case, it is now 20 years ago. I find this to be amazing.

There are plenty of critics who were never LDS who go back much farther than that to find something they believe is offensive.

[why me]

Isn't it interesting how often it is that the critics who tend to beat the Church with the "the thinking is over" stick, seem to be the most closed minded and dogmatic critics, or in other words the critics for whom there is no debate and the thinking is done.

This ought not be surprising because, not only are they projecting (people will at times decry most sharply in others the attributes most pronounced in themselves--it is an extention of self-loathing), but they mistakenly apply their overly literalistic and fundamentalistic interpretations onto the statements in question from church leaders .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that these same critics were extremely dogmatic when they were members. And as exmembers they project their dogmatism also. I have found such critics extremely judgemental of my less active church membership. And yet, I have never had any problems from active members on this forum or on any lds forums. It is only on exmormon forums that I have had problems from judgemental exmembers.

[wenglund]

I think that these same critics were extremely dogmatic when they were members. And as exmembers they project their dogmatism also. I have found such critics extremely judgemental of my less active church membership. And yet, I have never had any problems from active members on this forum or on any lds forums. It is only on exmormon forums that I have had problems from judgemental exmembers.

This underscores a salient point made several days ago, I believe by the Seth Payne, where he suggested that leaving the Church and not leaving it alone may be as much a function of personalities as it is anything else.

To me, one of the key reasons that vocal critics have lost faith and left the Church and turn to fight against it is because they failed to mature beyond fundamentalist thinking (which is vital during the formative years), and that same fundamentalist thinking provides the basis for and is well reflected in their criticism of the Church, if not also in the way they approach various other aspects of their lives.

Taking just as one example, the way Kevin Graham now approaches his anti-Mormonism as a disbeliever isn't much different than how he approached apologetics when he was believer. His personality and mindset seems little changed. All that differs is the object of his dogmatic haranges.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Duncan]

speaking from personal experience being abused is NOT your fault. You don't always know what situations in life will turn into the most horrifying experiences of your life, but obviously you get help and the Lord's healing

Edited February 14, 2012 by Duncan

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There is no new thing under the sun, said Ecclesiastes. Truly he spake. At some point in the restoration of the Church, some Mormon said, "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

No one thinks for me.

[sethpayne]

My apologies if this link has already been shared .... I've mostly skimmed through the thread.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/misc/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

I think FAIR does an excellent job of addressing this issue. The clarifying letter from President Smith is important.

I agree with Wade that critics tend to use "the thinking has been done" criticism a bit too zealously. In reality, LDS people are pretty autonomous. Are there some things where many of us "blindly" oben? Sure. Earings / ear etc... Frankly I think how BYU and some LDS people have chosen to interpret President Hinckley's remarks is a bit much in that they have essentially put this forth as a "commandment." GBH wasn't big on dishing out commandments. Rather, he seemed, to me at least, to focus on principles and I think the principle behind the earring "rule" is that LDS people should avoid gratuitous ear piercing because it sends a certain message to the world and, LDS people want to be in the world, of course, but not of the world. Plus, no one in a business or professional setting shouldn't wear anything outrageous. Having said all of that, I see women with two earrings in their ear and it doesn't appear out of line with the principle behind the GBH message.

Now, I do think it is very unfortunate that Elder Bednar stated that a young man was justified in breaking up with a girl because she wore two earrings in one ear. I don't her actions carry all of the implications Elder Bednar stated. Just my opinion ....

[Gordon]

Talk about not reading in context. How about actually reading what it says. It talks about responsibility, not accountability. Responsibility applies to recognizing the situation you are in and the effect it has on yourself and your children and that you do have the power to change it. Words have meanings and those who like to criticize have a tendency to throw out words they think are the same but have entirely different meanings.

Wow, Deborah, you're one of the posters who I have agreed with on a consistent basis. In this instance, though, you're straining at a gnat.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Gordon