Brooks Blames Church For Elizabeth Smarts Captivity

[Danzo]

For information on education of women (some reports deal with men as well)

http://www.utahwomen...e_Decisions.pdf

http://www.luminafou...tate_work/utah/

http://jobs.utah.gov.../factsheet.html

http://www.utahwomen...link-2.4.13.pdf

maybe the church is different in utah

Edited May 8, 2013 by Danzo

[Maidservant]

I, on the other hand, have never been taught during a lifetime in the Church that being raped is tantamount to losing one's chastity or virtue. The very idea seems so stupid I think I would have challenged it on the spot.

My takeaway from what I heard in Church or felt I heard in Church was that it was not my fault as long as I fought really hard. And the implication was the result of that fight should be a) the stopping of the rapist; or if not possible then b) your death. If you managed to survive, alive, and not having stopped the rapist--then you failed at the virtue test. Because if you managed to stay alive, you must not have wanted to die badly enough (fought hard enough) in order to protect your virtue.

If I ever find myself in a rape situation, I want the option to not fight it for the purpose of staying alive, which I find more valuable than 'my virtue', and also for the purpose of being as clearheaded as possible in order to get away from the situation which may be less possible were I engaged in just simple pure struggle (although heaven knows that would be one's reaction in any case). I also want the option to not fight it because it's not about me. I already said no, or in a rape situation, my 'no' is automatic no matter how quietly I may have said it or if I said it out loud at all, because I don't know anyone who actually consents to a rape. The level of my 'fight' is not a one-on-one correspondence to my 'NO'. My fight may depend on the total circumstances, I may not even fight at all if I thought it would lead to my survival (not death!); but my NO is absolute and always intact.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Maidservant

[Scott Lloyd]

My takeaway from what I heard in Church or felt I heard in Church was that it was not my fault as long as I fought really hard. And the implication was the the result of that fight should be a) the stopping of the rapist; or if not possible then b) your death. If you managed to survive, alive, and not having stopped the rapist--then you failed at the virtue test. Because if you managed to stay alive, you must not have wanted to die badly enough (fought hard enough) in order to protect your virtue.

It's indeed unfortunate that you got that impression in Church, but I don't recall having ever been taught that in a formal Church setting. I would not have accepted it if I had. It's simply not rational to believe that a person cannot be regarded as chaste or virtuous unless she fights to the death to resist a forcible assault.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't believe I did anything other than state fact, certainly nothing directed at Ellen. But thanks for making a judgement about my worth.

That was not appropriate but neither are your comments. You have been removed.

It's my impression that folks on both sides of this argument believe essentially the same thing but are engaging in silly semantic quibbling that unfortunately has become polarized and hostile.

[Maidservant]

It's indeed unfortunate that you got that impression in Church, but I don't recall having ever been taught that in a formal Church setting. I would not have accepted it if I had. It's simply not rational to believe that a person cannot be regarded as chaste or virtuous unless she fights to the death to resist a forcible assault.

Oh, I'm not claiming rationality. I was a teenage girl absorbing or mis-absorbing.

But I do remember doing thought experiments with myself to overcome my aversion to dying (fighting to the death), because I believed that that was what I had been instructed to do--die, if I didn't leave the situation having overcome the assailant. I did thought experiments to try to re-train myself to value my 'virtue' more than my 'life' (I barely had an idea of sexual matters in any case)--which was a difficult re-training because I was pretty sure I liked being alive even contemplating the possibility of a brutal situation like that. And I didn't come up with this 'I should die' out of thin air--maybe I 'shouldn't' have taken the Young Women's lessons that way--but that's they way they were given, so naturally, being obedient to the gospel, I hoped to be obedient and virtuous and, by golly, dead, were the time to ever come to me.

Since I have become an adult, and slightly more rational (hm? lol), I have re-concluded many things, of course.

[Tacenda]

I think I've heard that there's a passage in "The Miracle of Forgiveness" book, to the effect of fighting off the attacker first, or fight for your virtue. And I read it in my youth but that was too long ago to remember. The only reason I remember it is because of reading about it in other forums. Or am I getting it confused with something else?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[JarMan]

This is truly one of the most bizarre threads of all time.

[Tacenda]

It's on page 63: "President David O. McKay has pleaded: '... Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.'"

Thanks Nevo! I'm glad I'm not brain dead yet. I will have to admit that during my lowest or craziest time in my faith crises, my bishop gave my son and all the graduating youth in the ward, that book. And because of reading what others were saying about it, I threw it out. I just did not think it would be good for him to read. Now, I probably wouldn't have gone to such extremes. He didn't know it was gone and has never asked about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's on page 63: "President David O. McKay has pleaded: '... Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.'"

President Kimball also wrote in that book: "There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation."

The context I get is seduction. By definition, there can be no voluntary participation by a rape victim.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I'm not claiming rationality. I was a teenage girl absorbing or mis-absorbing.

But I do remember doing thought experiments with myself to overcome my aversion to dying (fighting to the death), because I believed that that was what I had been instructed to do--die, if I didn't leave the situation having overcome the assailant. I did thought experiments to try to re-train myself to value my 'virtue' more than my 'life' (I barely had an idea of sexual matters in any case)--which was a difficult re-training because I was pretty sure I liked being alive even contemplating the possibility of a brutal situation like that. And I didn't come up with this 'I should die' out of thin air--maybe I 'shouldn't' have taken the Young Women's lessons that way--but that's they way they were given, so naturally, being obedient to the gospel, I hoped to be obedient and virtuous and, by golly, dead, were the time to ever come to me.

Since I have become an adult, and slightly more rational (hm? lol), I have re-concluded many things, of course.

If your message is that we need to be clearer in our teachings to our youth regarding this subject, I am in whole-hearted agreement.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

maybe the church is different in utah

It's not.

If anything, I think it's the inertia of custom and tradition. Parents, school counselors, teachers and others need to make sure girls get as much access to post-high school advice, college enrollment applications, scholarship applications, etc., as boys do.

[Bernard Gui]

Here are my thoughts. Feel free to pick them apart...

I'm rather shocked that anyone can look at that scripture and not take it at its word. It clearly says their virtue and chastity was the most precious thing they had. And it was gone. Taken means....gone. I mean come on, is it really that important to defend a few words? Only those who have grown up and become hardened to the use of that verse as a means of keeping girls in line is going to see it saying anything differently.

I have always believed that virtue and chastity are just as important to men as to women.

This is typical of what I have been taught in Priesthood classes, meetings, and conferences for

almost 60 years:

Robert Backman, October Conference, 1989

My beloved Aaronic Priesthood brethren, with all you are learning as you progress toward virile manhood, I pray that you will get understanding of the vital truth that chastity is the ultimate and perfect standard underlying all spiritual progression...My precious young brothers, may you understand that chastity is the source of virile manhood, the crown of beautiful womanhood, the foundation of a happy home, and the ultimate and perfect standard underlying all spiritual progression.

If I am robbed, my possessions have been taken. I am not a robber. The thief is accountable, and can restore what was taken. Forgiveness may come through restoration and repentance.

If I am murdered, I am deprived of my second most precious possession - my life. I am not guilty of murder, but my life has been taken. The murderer is accountable for the sin, and cannot restore what was taken. Only Jesus, through the Atonement, can restore to me what was taken. Forgiveness may come, but at a price.

Chastity and virtue: No sexual activity of any kind before marriage. No sexual activity of any kind with someone other than the spouse after marriage. (BG's interpretation)

If I commit adultery or fornication, I deprive myself and my partner of our most precious possessions, chastity and virtue. We consented to the sin, but we will be held individually accountable. We cannot restore what we took from ourselves, from each other, and from our present or future spouses and children. Adultery and fornication are sins of consent. Both parties are deprived of their chastity and virtue. Justice requires that both be held accountable, but mercy is applied through individual repentance. Only through Jesus and his atonement can those be restored to ourselves and those we harmed. Forgiveness comes through repentance, but at a price. This is what makes "Miracle of Forgiveness" so difficult to accept. Deep sexual sin=deep godly sorrow=deep repentance without the ability to restore what was taken.

If I am raped, I am deprived of my most precious possessions - chastity and virtue - just as if I were murdered. I am not guilty of any sin. I am not accountable - the rapist is accountable. Rape is not a sin of mutual consent. It is an act of violence committed against an innocent party. The rapist cannot restore what was taken. Through the Atonement, chastity and virtue are restored (or imputed) to me just as my life is restored if I am murdered. Forgiveness for the sin of the rapist may come after long, hard repentance.

Misguided, misinformed but well-meaning people may use Mormon's words as a scare tactic. He was a man's man, a warrior from youth, a survivor against horrendous odds, yet a man of great faith and compassion. His words should not be misinterpreted to cast guilt on the Lamanite women, or any woman, because of the depravity of Nephite men. The women were deprived of their chastity and virtue, and then of their lives. All that is restored by Jesus Christ.

I vividly remember the nail in the board analogy in my 1950s Primary class in an old Army barracks in Los Alamos, New Mexico. I clearly remember the discomfort I felt, which I now interpret as the Spirit saying, "This is not true." This analogy denies hope for the sinner. Without hope, there can be no faith or charity. In essence, it destroys faith and denies the Atonement.

The chewed gum/licked cupcake/handled candy bar/broken cup analogies, if taken in the same way as the nail in the board, also deny the Atonement. When I heard them in classes, I understood them to mean that I am responsible to keep myself chaste and pure, not that I should judge others as being unworthy of my attention. In this sense, they are useful analogies, but only to the point where repentance takes place. When I commit sins, I am damaged goods that may not be desirable to others. Only repentance and forgiveness can restore what was lost by choosing to sin. If they motivate me to be vigilant, they served a purpose. If they lead me to pass judgment on other sinners, then they miss the mark and deny the efficacy of the Atonement.

My analogy of the ABC gum:

Here is a piece of chewed gum. Anybody want to chew it? I didn't think so. This is what sin can do to us. Here is a fresh piece of gum still in the wrapper. Anybody want to chew it? OK. Delicious, isn't it. You may be chewed gum (a sinner), but Jesus will make you whole and fresh and new again. This is what the Atonement can do for each of us when we sin.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

maybe the church is different in utah

In my experience, there is Church culture and there is Utah culture (which varies from place to place within Utah) and sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don't.

[Calm]

It's indeed unfortunate that you got that impression in Church, but I don't recall having ever been taught that in a formal Church setting.

It would be less likely that a man would hear that than a woman because rape is not usually something people associate with happening to men.

Having said that, I never heard it myself either, but I believe there is scripture that implies that (IIRC in the OT if a woman is raped in the city and does not cry out for help, it was considered consensual; if she was in the country where no one could hear her, she is given the benefit of the doubt) and I have heard from women that they were taught that. I have also heard it taught outside of church so I suspect it is more an American issue than an LDS issue, something that is labeled "rape culture".

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It's not.

If anything, I think it's the inertia of custom and tradition. Parents, school counselors, teachers and others need to make sure girls get as much access to post-high school advice, college enrollment applications, scholarship applications, etc., as boys do.

And thankfully there are projects out there to do just that, like the organization that put out that site I linked to.

[Bernard Gui]

In my experience, there is Church culture and there is Utah culture (which varies from place to place within Utah) and sometimes they overlap and sometimes they don't.

See the new thread I have started about this.

[Teancum]

Actually I called you on your confusion of the terms virtue and virginity. I said they were not the same thing. You came back with the rather strange assertion that LDS leaders use them synonymously. I still maintain that LDS leaders are smart enough to understand the difference.

As for the Romney story, I think you are overreacting to the rhetoric and in so doing, ignoring the import of the message, which is that moral purity is something to be treasured and safeguarded, and that sexual sin can bring heartbreak to righteous parents. This is especially so if the errant child is unrepentant. As a father who wishes the best for his children, I can relate to the sentiment of having greater grief over a son or daughter being embroiled in sexual im

morality than if the same son or daughter had died but had retained his or her virtue.

I was most certainly not confused about what virtue and virgintiy means. But in the talk by Bednar the discussion was sexual morality. When he and other leaders he quoted used the term virtue it seems clear that they meant virginity.

Also I DID NOT assert that LDS leaders use them synonymously in all instances. However, as others have pointed out they often do and I am surprised that you seem astounded that someone would assert as such. But readers can read the Bednar talk and other comments by LDS leaders and decide for themselves.

I too wish the best for my children. And some of them have chosen foolishly at points in their lives to disregard the LDS Church

teachings on chastity. It has caused my much heartache. But they have also chosed to repent from their mistakes but one still has work to do on this. I can tell you even for the one that has work to do I would not rather see this child dead. Are you implying that you would for one of yours? I really don't think I am overeacting. Leaders can teach the law of chastity without nonsensical comments like the Romeny story. It is a horrible message to send to a child.

[Teancum]

CFR, please.

Already provided.

[Teancum]

It's indeed unfortunate that you got that impression in Church, but I don't recall having ever been taught that in a formal Church setting. I would not have accepted it if I had. It's simply not rational to believe that a person cannot be regarded as chaste or virtuous unless she fights to the death to resist a forcible assault.

Really?

How about this best seller:

Also far-reaching is the effect of the loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a 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."

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, page 196

Remember Scott many of us were teens when Kimball was church president. While this book may not be official it was written by an apostle and used very much so. It is totally understandable that readers of this book took Komball seriously.

So I assume you believe that Kimball was irrational in his comments?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Teancum

[wenglund]

Judging from some of the comments, I get the sense that I have over-estimated the ability of young women to common-sensically garner the intended and helpful meaning of certain scriptures and analogies. And, some of what several men have said suggest that our young men may be likewise ill-disposed.

If so, then, since there is no perfect analogy, perhaps we should do away with analogies all together when teaching the youth so as to avoid inadvertent psychological damage--starting with "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" and "Give said the Little Stream."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

I was so upset when I heard Elizabeth being interviewed awhile back when she said that the searchers were so close to her in the hills behind her house but missed finding her within yards. That's terrible, we could have done better than that, how she must have felt.

There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about a US WWII bomber being strafed by antiaircraft fire, and having its fuel tanks pierced, but not exploding. Later, upon examination (the story holds), it was discovered that none of the rounds had any explosive charge in them. They were all empty . . . except for one. In it was a note, scrawled on a scrap of paper in Czech, "This is all we can do for you right now."

What the slave-laborers did for the Allied war effort wasn't much . . . but it was enough.

I think this notion of efforts being not enough is demeaning to those who spent so much of their blood, sweat, tears, time and treasure looking for how many abducted children over the years, decades and centuries. Their efforts may not be much, but they are surely enough. Why would you inflict feelings of failure and guilt upon those feeling failure and guilt for their lack of success in a very human and humane venture like trying to find that missing girl?

Disgusting.

[USU78]

My takeaway from what I heard in Church or felt I heard in Church was that it was not my fault as long as I fought really hard. And the implication was the result of that fight should be a) the stopping of the rapist; or if not possible then b) your death. If you managed to survive, alive, and not having stopped the rapist--then you failed at the virtue test. Because if you managed to stay alive, you must not have wanted to die badly enough (fought hard enough) in order to protect your virtue.

If I ever find myself in a rape situation, I want the option to not fight it for the purpose of staying alive, which I find more valuable than 'my virtue', and also for the purpose of being as clearheaded as possible in order to get away from the situation which may be less possible were I engaged in just simple pure struggle (although heaven knows that would be one's reaction in any case). I also want the option to not fight it because it's not about me. I already said no, or in a rape situation, my 'no' is automatic no matter how quietly I may have said it or if I said it out loud at all, because I don't know anyone who actually consents to a rape. The level of my 'fight' is not a one-on-one correspondence to my 'NO'. My fight may depend on the total circumstances, I may not even fight at all if I thought it would lead to my survival (not death!); but my NO is absolute and always intact.

I read a novel some years back about a Jewish woman, the wife of a young rabbi, whose home was invaded by a gangbanger punk. In order to protect her life, she kept silent, rather than cry out. Later, she read in the Torah about a woman being subject to the death penalty if she is attacked in the city, but fails to cry out. If she's in the country, with nobody around, she needn't cry out as it would be a useless act.

She has a child . . . dark complected with curly hair . . . and the family assumes there's some Sephardic blood that's popping up. Seems the child she'd prayed for finally came. But she remains silent, in self-recrimination, in her shame at failing to live up to her duties under the Torah.

The boy grows up, marries a nice Jewish girl, they have a child, and she has a son . . . a black son. And this woman's son, the child's father, wants to divorce her for adultery.

The rape victim finally speaks up . . . her courage is a great example . . . but her husband is so disappointed in her. Had he confided in her, he would have told her that there have to be at least 2 witnesses to the act in order to condemn her. Her rapist never will. And her own self-reproach is not enough. She is blameless under the Torah.

And this good father loved his son even more lovingly and gently after the sad, horrible revelation after the boy's wife divorces him for his sanctimony and unforgiving heart.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.biblestud...ronomy 22:13-30

Deuteronomy 22:13-30

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing You must purge the evil from Israel. 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death--the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. 30 A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed.

Edited May 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Teancum]

Judging from some of the comments, I get the sense that I have over-estimated the ability of young women to common-sensically garner the intended and helpful meaning of certain scriptures and analogies. And, some of what several men have said suggest that our young men may be likewise ill-disposed.

If so, then, since there is no perfect analogy, perhaps we should do away with analogies all together when teaching the youth so as to avoid inadvertent psychological damage--starting with "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" and "Give said the Little Stream."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You bet Wade. You have insight that is special and others are just foolish to believe the words they read. But see what you are doing is saying your experience is the valid one and thus you invalidate everyone else whose experience and interpretation differs from you. Why can't you seem to accept that others views are equally as valid as yours? Why do you need to attempt to marginalize others experiences?