Brooks Blames Church For Elizabeth Smarts Captivity

[ERayR]

For some reason i can't get the link to work Cinepro-it just keeps telling me the page cannot be found.

I have the same problem.

[Maidservant]

By all means we should emphasize that rape is not in any way the fault of the victim. But I think we need to realize that for 90+% or so of the young women of the church, rape is not, and never will be, an issue. For most young women, the problem is going to be pre-martial sexual activity. What happened to Elizabeth Smart was a terrible crime and tragedy. But it is very rare.

Well, see that's the thing.

Some here in the thread may be thinking we are talking about a small percentage of persons affected, 10 percent or less, and this may affect how they approach the issue.

But some here in the thread (myself included) are presuming there is a far greater prevalence of rape and molestation, and this belief or understanding is also affecting how they (I) approach the issue.

So maybe some statistics are in order about now (I don't have any!). But you are right that most women that are raped, are not raped by strangers in bizarre situations like the one Ms. Smart had to face. That is rare. Most are raped by family members or dates--so an implication to kill or be killed is even less helpful.

But rape spectrum and the rape culture for both women, young women and young boys is not rare, it is prevalent. It is likely, not unlikely, that oneself or someone one knows has been touched by rape or molestation on some level of spectrum. So it is common to have to deal with emotional and spiritual issues regarding it--not rare.

I don't know if men have to do this, or perhaps I'm the only woman who has to do this, but I have to carry around in my head a scene and set of strategies of "What to do when I am raped". Do men have to do this? Do other women do this, or am I just weird? That's an actual question, I'd love to hear responses.

But I have to have several play by plays in my head--what if I'm in my house, what if I'm near my car, what if--what parts of his body do I go for first, do I walk with 911 dialed on my cell and my thumb ready on the send, if I can't stop it I have to remember to not take a shower but call the police--etc etc etc. And I'm a woman in my 40s, so I've had lots of time to hone this scenario to hopefully the best outcome with any given set of parameters. And if I am hearing at church that I need to die for my virtue (as a teenage girl), then I need to add that into the strategy or scene at some point. It's not a theory or wishy washy analogy. It's something to do should the need arise if that's what I've been taught (now that I'm in my 40s, I've discarded that as a task an obedient gospel daughter would do). I'm not an ad hoc potential rape victim. I'm a plan ahead potential rape victim; and that planning ahead involves doctrinal and spiritual issues. As a women I am always in that potential. It never leaves. Is this just me?

In any case, I think what calmoriah says bears repeating, and I was thinking it already, but she said it best. When a person is consenting (unwisely or in sin) to a sexual encounter, and has capacity for that consent, it is never a life or death situation. You never have the choice to die for your virtue presented--it's just yes, I will do that; or no, I won't. So to call for one's death seems automatically applicable only to rape situations, which, again, we are saying in this thread (I think everyone is no matter what their other views on the issue), if we ever had that mentality (from whatever source, Church or our own culture or whatever), then it's time to re-think.

It's also strange to me, where we say that murder is the worst sin, and sexual sin is second in line--but we are trying to apply death (the first worst thing) to a sexual problem (the second worst thing). It's backwards!

[cinepro]

I have the same problem.

Fixed it:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/07/a-hole-in-her-soul?lang=eng

[Calm]

I don't know if men have to do this, or perhaps I'm the only woman who has to do this, but I have to carry around in my head a scene and set of strategies of "What to do when I am raped". Do men have to do this? Do other women do this, or am I just weird? That's an actual question, I'd love to hear responses.

Not weird, I am not as detailed as yours...but it's there.

[Calm]

Fixed it:

https://www.lds.org/...r-soul?lang=eng

I remember being impressed when it came out. Thank you for reposting it. The Ensign has had several articles I remember about victims and the difficulty but possibility of healing.

Here are some more:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/04/to-heal-the-shattering-consequences-of-abuse?lang=eng (I love that he 'gave permission' for the abused to not forgive someone at that time if they weren't ready for it)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/04/healing-the-spiritual-wounds-of-sexual-abuse?lang=eng

Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[USU78]

I don't know if men have to do this, or perhaps I'm the only woman who has to do this, but I have to carry around in my head a scene and set of strategies of "What to do when I am raped". Do men have to do this? Do other women do this, or am I just weird? That's an actual question, I'd love to hear responses.

Excellent question. I had a talk with my older brother the other day, and he agrees with me that he does it, but, like me, doesn't remember ever learning it.

As I walk down the street, I am constantly assessing the potential threats by people who approach from behind, whom I encounter coming the other way, and who I approach before passing. I am also constantly positioning myself so as best to be in a position to protect those with whom I'm walking. If I get too many people from too many directions at once and cannot keep potential threats localized and in view, I get a little panicky: fight/flight kicks in, which I fight down, and I go into a mini-crouch.

It may be because we were both the victims of black-on-white violence back in the late '50s in northern California . . . or it may be something learned from living with a former paratrooper father . . . but it's something we keep doing even though we're getting longer and longer in the tooth.

The world, alas!, is not a particularly safe place and there are some bad guys out there who delight in doing bad things.

[Calm]

Excellent question. I had a talk with my older brother the other day, and he agrees with me that he does it, but, like me, doesn't remember ever learning it.

As I walk down the street, I am constantly assessing the potential threats by people who approach from behind, whom I encounter coming the other way, and who I approach before passing. I am also constantly positioning myself so as best to be in a position to protect those with whom I'm walking. If I get too many people from too many directions at once and cannot keep potential threats localized and in view, I get a little panicky: fight/flight kicks in, which I fight down, and I go into a mini-crouch.

It may be because we were both the victims of black-on-white violence back in the late '50s in northern California . . . or it may be something learned from living with a former paratrooper father . . . but it's something we keep doing even though we're getting longer and longer in the tooth.

The world, alas!, is not a particularly safe place and there are some bad guys out there who delight in doing bad things.

You prepare for attack by assessing how to avoid it, etc. I would suspect this is common for anyone who has experienced violence or been in a self defense class (as in my experience they teach you to do this). But do you rehearse what you will experience if you are attacked--how you will emotionally deal with it for example---and do you ever consider the possibility of rape or sexual abuse? Edited May 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

1 in 3 women will experience some kind of sexual abuse. I know several women who've been abused. Some had gone on to being permiscuous, it's not always their fault if that's the case. Somehow people need to stop the cycle. We need to keep our eyes & ears open. And help those who might be in the situation. There's no way to police what goes on behind closed doors but those children go to school, maybe teachers need to be educated on signs of abuse. Or maybe they already do, hopefully that's the case.

Maidservant and USU78, reading your posts about being prepared if attacked, brought back a memory of mine. It was something I did instinctually. I was running after work in Sugarhouse Park because I was attending a class nearby. I went into the restroom and when I came out these men came walking towards me and I knew they had something in mind. They were evil, when they approached me I started mumbling and acting like I was deaf. I don't know why I did that but something told me to do it. I've no idea why that would make them leave me alone but they did and I ran off.

[Bill Hamblin]

Any analogy that would imply that full spiritual restitution is not available to everyone is false doctrine and has no place in any Church that would aspire to teach only true doctrine.

In other words, even if the incidence of sexual assault were 0 among LDS, analogies that imply some sort of permanent degradation would still be offensive, false, and damaging.

Some may argue that it is worth it to teach offensive, false and damaging things if it helps some youth avoid making mistakes (and the collateral damage to abuse victims and those who sin is worth it for the greater good), but let's at least agree on the nature of what is being taught, and the price we pay for the manipulation.

Of course I implied nothing of the sort. Not even close. The BOM passage in question is a euphemism for rape. It is about the heinous sin of the perpetrators, not the spiritual state of the victims.

[USU78]

You prepare for attack by assessing how to avoid it, etc. I would suspect this is common for anyone who has experienced violence or been in a self defense class (as in my experience they teach you to do this). But do you rehearse what you will experience if you are attacked--how you will emotionally deal with it for example---and do you ever consider the possibility of rape or sexual abuse?

I don't find the emotional fallout relevant to threat assessment or response. Part of my job as hunter/male/alpha is to neutralize or eradicate threats to the tribe. There is great pleasure in doing this.

OTOH: Having been molested my prepubescent self, I know a fair bit about the outcome and long-term effects. I am triggered when I hear that certain lilt in the male voice modulated in order to project itself as belonging to the male American homosexual "community." I go into the protective crouch, if only mentally. That voice was the voice in my head when I built myself into a person not to be trifled with physically.

Having gone through what young American males go through in order to become successful high school and college athletes, I'm now and have long been highly unlikely to be picked as a target of sexual assault. If one wishes to attack me, he can see by the way I stand and carry myself that the stakes would be quite high upon any physical encounter. He'd better be prepared to risk serious injury in order to inflict injury.

As my college roommate's poster stated: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, 'cause I'm the meanest s**-of-a-b**** in the valley."

[ERayR]

Of course I implied nothing of the sort. Not even close. The BOM passage in question is a euphemism for rape. It is about the heinous sin of the perpetrators, not the spiritual state of the victims.

I said that earlier but nobody is listening. Minds are made up damn the facts.

[Calm]

I said that earlier but nobody is listening. Minds are made up damn the facts.

One can be aware of the actual intent of a scripture while also being aware of a potential or likely misreading/misinterpretation.

add-on: I am not saying the Church is wrong in using the Moroni scripture to teach the value of chastity in virtue, I am only saying there are better ways to do so in order to avoid unintentional harm to those who are already in a fragile or overly sensitive state.

Substituting a different scripture that avoids this potential problem in a lesson does not seem a difficult or impractical thing for the Church to do. They make changes all of the time.

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Senator]

The truth is that there are a few things worth dying for, and sexual purity is one of them. If sexual purity, preservation of life and freedom aren't worth dying for, then what is?

I'm not in total agreement with this. Rape is but a subset of physical assault. How you are being assaulted is rather irrelevant to the right one has to defend him/herself. And as has already been thoroughly demonstrated, a victim of rape has had no change of status in regards to sexual purity. Therefore, with this line of thinking, someone defending themselves to the point of death is doing so strictly out the right to self defense, not out of the idea of the loss of sexual purity, since that can't be taken from them. Edited May 10, 2013 by Senator

[Calm]

And as has already been thoroughly demonstrated, a victim of rape has had no change of status in regards to sexual purity. Therefore, with this line of thinking, someone defending themselves to the point of death is doing so strictly out the right to self defense, not out of the idea of the loss of sexual purity, since that can't be taken from them.

I think this is a clear way of stating what point I was trying to make earlier (that I see you saw and approve of).

I think sexual purity would be something worth dying for...purity in other ways as well, I just don't see any actual scenarios where this would have to take place since it is oneself that does the act that deprives one of sexual purity and one doesn't usually have to resort to the extreme measure of killing oneself to stop one from committing sin. Unless one is so emotionally disturbed as to believe that s/he had no control over his/her own sexual actions so that his or her own option is to commit suicide to prevent participating in unchaste behaviour, death is not on someone's option of list of how to be chaste...nor does it need to be, all one has to do is avoid impure behaviour.

The discussion of how far one would go to defend oneself is a different discussion then how far one would have to go to be sexually or otherwise pure. Defense may require being willing to die (depends on the person and the situation); purity only requires a state of mind or intent and the strength of commitment to avoid sinful behaviour.

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I'm not in total agreement with this. Rape is but a subset of physical assault. How you are being assaulted is rather irrelevant to the right one has to defend him/herself. And as has already been thoroughly demonstrated, a victim of rape has had no change of status in regards to sexual purity. Therefore, with this line of thinking, someone defending themselves to the point of death is doing so strictly out the right to self defense, not out of the idea of the loss of sexual purity, since that can't be taken from them.

But I'm in total agreement with you. When I say maintaining one's virginity or sexual purity is worth dying for, I use the expression "worth dying for" as an ideal -- a state of mind more than than anything else. It means no matter what happens, cruel abusers will never be able to rob one of their God given dignity as a daughter of God. Because she values her virtue so highly, not even a rapist who overpowers physically will ever be able to destroy her virtue. If one has living faith in Christ, all things can become new again; the servants of the devil will not succeed in their insane resolve to damage the virtue and holiness of the daughters of God. If the victim does not die in the struggle, the Saviour will die for her.

Edited May 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

When I say maintaining one's virginity or sexual purity is worth dying for, I use the expression "worth dying for" as an ideal -- a state of mind more than than anything else. It means no matter what happens, cruel abusers will never be able to rob one of their God given dignity as a daughter of God.

Unfortunately not everyone who hears that expression understands when people mean it this way...as evidenced by responses to your comment.

If we are going to use expressions that evoke powerful emotions and cognitions, we need to be sure we are evoking the right ones...at least to the best of our ability. The reality is we cannot completely protect against misunderstanding, but we can try to do our best.

[ERayR]

Fixed it:

https://www.lds.org/...r-soul?lang=eng

Thanks.

[ERayR]

Unfortunately not everyone who hears that expression understands when people mean it this way...as evidenced by responses to your comment.

If we are going to use expressions that evoke powerful emotions and cognitions, we need to be sure we are evoking the right ones...at least to the best of our ability. The reality is we cannot completely protect against misunderstanding, but we can try to do our best.

Just a thought and I mean no offense. It is unfortunate but we have become a society of people looking for things to take offense over.

[teddyaware]

Unfortunately not everyone who hears that expression understands when people mean it this way...as evidenced by responses to your comment.

If we are going to use expressions that evoke powerful emotions and cognitions, we need to be sure we are evoking the right ones...at least to the best of our ability. The reality is we cannot completely protect against misunderstanding, but we can try to do our best.

I dilberately left certain things unsaid to see the kinds of responses I would get. It's called being thought provoking.

[Calm]

Just a thought and I mean no offense. It is unfortunate but we have become a society of people looking for things to take offense over.

I know you don't mean any offense and none is taken. And I think you know me well enough from previous comments that I don't automatically fall in the mode of insisting things should be changed because of potential offense or even real offense. And IIRC my first comments on this thread were criticizing Sister Brooks for not representing Sister Smart's comments accurately....I know for sure those were my first thoughts whether I wrote them down or not. (apparently I didn't write it down at the time...at least not in this thread, I have been discussing it in a couple of places)

I don't really care about those who take offense for others (by this I mean they get actually get offended, not those who are trying to fix things to avoid others being hurt). I do care about those who have been victims of abuse and rape or even just have extremely low self esteem or some other issue that gets in the way of being able to have a balanced and reasonable view of what others say and who are therefore sensitive to such things. I have seen abuse victims who are able to react to the whole doctrinal picture (and other aspects of life in general) as opposed to taking phrases out of context or overreacting to a teacher who makes a misstep or even teaches false doctrine unintentionally. But in my experience, at least half of the victims have not been at that stage yet. Instead they are at the stage where they take a step forward and then when something that appears negative to them shows up, they take ten steps back and they end up condemning themselves if they internalise it or they get furious with others if they project the offense on to others and often they do both at once or alternate back and forth (this is of course a very simplistic picture, each case is unique and each person reacts to different aspects differently).

If I hadn't seen this dynamic operating in real life, I would be more hesitant about suggesting change. And I would like to point out I have never claimed (and I don't think most others who are suggesting change in this thread have either) that it is the Church's culture that is at fault, but rather that it is something that exists in the wider culture that has unfortunately filtered into the Church and ends up causing unnecessary heartache and stands in the way of some who need healing.

I hold (as far as I can tell) the same position as Sister Smart....that there are wonderful things in the Gospel, the Church and LDS families in general that can be miraculous ways to support healing, starting with our most essential and central doctrine of the Atonement; but we still need to put effort into erasing false doctrines and misinterpretations because we are dealing with humans and that means errors can creep in, so we need to be vigilant.

I don't think we should blow things out of proportion and the majority of the news reports and versions of Sister Smart's comments do just that because they take one aspect of what she states (the chewing gum analogy) and ignore everything else, including the reason why she brought it up...to encourage us to do more to prepare children who are confronted with abuse, kidnapping, etc. to respond in ways that can limit the harm and tragedy of those events.

But I also don't think that pointing out that with the next update of a manual (and it might be worth it that the update comes sooner than later...at least as soon as possible on the online stuff), a minor correction of switching to the use of another scripture to make a point would likely be a good idea.

I look on taking this kind of caution in how the Church presents things as much the same as the conference talk I linked to earlier where after going on quite sometime about the spiritual health and benefits of forgiving one's abuser, he pauses long enough to say more or less 'but for those who are not ready yet, you don't need to feel guilty, take whatever time you need to heal, make that decision for yourself' as well as the explicit statement in the For Strength of Youth book saying that rape and abuse victims are not sexually impure. From what I've seen, the Church is working on making it as clear as possible, but sometimes missteps are made and attention needs to be brought to them just as attention was brought to things that have already been addressed.

The only reason why I am not suggesting that the individuals concerned with the Moroni quote in the manual should be mostly limiting their actions, if not the discussion, to using the feedback system of the curriculum department (as I would normally in the case of the usual type of inaccuracies) is that I think it is potentially problematic enough that teachers need to be aware of the possible misinterpretation so that they can make an effort to ensure that girls who are reading this won't make that mistake...at least to the best of the teachers' abilities.

PS: can tell I am getting too tired, writing way too much to try and make sure I am not misunderstood rather than just finding a precise way of saying it....even in this postscript, lol.

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I dilberately left certain things unsaid to see the kinds of responses I would get. It's called being thought provoking.

My dad does that. I call it mind games most of the time due to the results. There are other ways of being thought provoking that don't increase misunderstandings and miscommunication.

[teddyaware]

My dad does that. I call it mind games most of the time due to the results. There are other ways of being thought provoking that don't increase misunderstandings and miscommunication.

I wasn't playing mind games. I simply said that life, virtue and freedom are all worth dying for. I thought, considering most of us here are Latter-day Saints, that simply repeating what I've heard in Church throughout my 43 years as a member (especially in sacred places) wouldn't be very offensive and controversial. So I withheld my more expansive explanation of the principle, wanting to see if what I'd been taught many times would cause offence, and so it did.

So at the risk of causing further offence, let me ask the board members who care to respond the following question: If the time ever comes when it will be worth your life to openly admit you're a Latter-day Saint, will you be willing to give up your life for your testimony of Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the Restored Gospel?

Edited May 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

So I withheld my more expansive explanation of the principle, wanting to see if what I'd been taught many times would cause offence, and so it did.

Disagreement doesn't equal "offence".

And the way you are phrasing your comment it seems you anticipated offence would be taken...I find that generally when something is anticipated, it turns out to be as anticipated...at least by the person doing the anticipating.

As to your question...interesting that you would ask that as I was just thinking about using that as an example of what I mean when I say that sexual purity is worth dying for as opposed to suggesting that it would be better to be dead than raped or abused.

I would hope that I would be willing to be open about my faith under almost any situation...so far I have been...but I have to admit that I don't know what I would do in a life threatening situation not having ever been in a situation where my life was threatened and I really have no idea what I would do if someone else's life were threatened based on whether or not I was willing to deny my faith or not, I would really find it a problem making that decision if children were involved that didn't have a clue what was going on or if someone else would be subjected to torture. Would God want me to allow someone else to be tortured in such a case? Does it matter what those who would do such a thing, demand such a decision actually think about me and my faith or at least does that matter as much as saving someone from torture or death?

Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Disagreement doesn't equal "offence".

True. Thanks for reminding me.

[Calm]

True. Thanks for reminding me.

I added a comment about your question if you are interested to that post.