Thank You, Brother Daniel Peterson, For Posting This Update On Elizabeth Smart And The Law Of Chastity

[Daniel Peterson]

If Dan had read Smart's actual speech, he'd know what was actually said, and therefore have no need to reference the "alleged."

I supplied the links. I felt no need to do more than that. Most people can click on a link.

He'd also know that the argument he constructed is made of straw.

In other words, if Peterson actually knew anything about this, he would vocally agree with crixus.

[Calm]

​I doubt you'd find many teachings on the spiritual state of rape victims in the first place.

Actually we can find just that:

If you are a victim of abuse, seek help immediately. Talk with your priesthood leader, normally your bishop or branch president but at times a member of the stake or district presidency. He can help you know what to do.

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.

Pray for the peace that comes only through Jesus Christ and His Atonement (see John 14:27; 16:33). The Savior has experienced all your pains and afflictions, even those caused by others, and He knows how to help you (see Alma 7:11–12). Rather than seek revenge, focus on matters you can control, such as your own outlook on life. Pray for the strength to forgive those who have hurt you.

Continue to seek help from your priesthood leader so he can guide you through the process of emotional healing. Through the blessings of the gospel, you can stop the cycle of abuse and be freed from the suffering you have experienced.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

To bad the analogies used by the Church fail to convey that message.

Besides, Church teachings suggest the opposite of what you just said: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/i-choose-to-be-pure?lang=eng

Or this one: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/10/truths-of-moral-purity?lang=eng

Or this: http://www.lds.org/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth-fulfilling-our-duty-to-god/sexual-purity?lang=eng

None of those links equate virginity with sexual purity.

In any event, according to Elizabeth Smart and her Mormon teachings, it does correlates with "self-worth."

More falsehood.

Are you unaware of or have you just chosen to ignore the specific statement in "For the Strength of Youth" that being victimized by rape does not make one unchaste or impure?

We're talking about how the church's teachings to children have attributed to Smart's.

We were talking about the rank falsehood of your statement that Mormonism equates virginity with sexual purity.

Admit you were wrong and move on. It's good for the soul.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Glenn101]

Actually we can find just that:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Let's not confuse the issue with actual facts and for heaven's sake, NO Real References.

Glenn

[Calm]

Hard to imagine how some Mormon kids would get this idea that losing one's virginity means becoming unclean.

Since Mormon kids are taught that having sex within marriage is chaste and thus one can lose their virginity and still be morally clean even in a case where one willingly gives up their virginity, I believe you are misrepresenting what they are being taught.

There are a number of places in LDS teachings where it is stated quite clearly, including one of the major manuals for youth, True to the Faith, that I have just quoted from in an above posts, that loss of virginity---when taken and not given away---does not render the victim impure. They are innocent before God and the Church.

That there are some LDS who teach false doctrine--that loss of virginity equates to loss of purity--does not mean that it is the Church's teaching. It appears in fact to be more relevant to American culture, what is termed "rape culture" by some of those who study it...that teaches that a woman's value is associated with her virginity.

[crixus]

Why don't you just paste your blog entry here since it is so short?

I’ve been puzzled, over recent days, by certain remarks attributed to Elizabeth Smart — remarks in which she seems to criticize, rather harshly, what she had been taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding chastity.

What remarks? He never says. He just assures us he is going to "correct" them.

Supposedly, her church had taught her that young women who have had nonmarital sex — even coerced sex, in rape or child abuse — are like licked cupcakes, or already-chewed gum, or boards into which a nail has been driven and that can never be restored to their unmarred state.

I don't know of anyone in the media or anywhere else who has made this argument that the Church says raped victims lose their self-worth. Dan doesn't reference them either, but he's certain he's "correcting" them. He is engaged in a straw man argument here. What I have repeatedly read in the media is that the Church taught Elizabeth that by losing her virginity, to her mind anyway, her self-worth diminished. This isn't something she "allegedly" said, it is something she absolutely said. I know, because I heard her say it. I quoted her several times in this thread. She didn't "allegedly" say it, she flat out said it.

Consequently, having been raped by Brian David Mitchell, her abductor, she felt herself worthless. This, she supposedly said, is why she didn’t try to escape. Her church is responsible.

There is no "supposedly" about it, and Dan would know this if he had heard her speech.

Her criticisms didn’t seem consistent with what I had heard and read from her before. I specifically recall her saying that it was her church’s and her parents’ teaching that she is a daughter of God that had helped her to retain the sense that, despite Mitchell’s abuse, she was valuable and valued, not worthless. She has recovered remarkably well, and, among other things, has served a mission in France and has married in the temple. She scarcely seems hostile to her church, or resentful of its teachings. (For those who might be unaware, sheer admission to LDS temples is granted only to those who have been judged to be committed to the teachings and practices of the LDS Church.)

But no one said she was openly "hostile" towards her Church. The only people sensing hostility appear to be Mormons who refuse to acknowledge any kind of problems with anything the Church says or does.

I resolved that I would comment upon this matter on my blog, but that, first, I wanted to be sure to get everything exactly right.

Then why didn't you?

Fortunately, it seems that I may not have to do much checking up. And it also seems that the accounts of her recent comments at Johns Hopkins University have garbled her sentiments rather seriously. (See here, for example.)

Yes, what better source than the opinion of an anonymous blogger? I suspect it would have been just as easy to google and provide the link to Elizabeth's speech. For some reason Dan didn't think that was the best idea.

Color me astonished that the national news media would seem to slant a story touching on a socially-conservative church in a negative direction, and that certain commentators would leap on that slanted story with uncritical and perhaps agenda-driven gusto.

Because some anonymous blogger says so? Who are all these "certain commentators" leaping on a slanted story, aside from Dan himself?

[Calm]

And one who is true to the marital covenant is pure even though no longer a virgin.

And you think this is something that the Church teaches to children? We're talking about how the church's teachings to children have attributed to Smart's dec

Sister Smart even stated that she was saving her sexual experience for marriage, so yes...even in the case of Sister Smart, she realized (and other children do as well) that losing one's virginity in marriage is not the same as being unchaste.

If you are interpreting that comment to mean that someone can lose one's virginity before marriage and still at marriage be considered pure, children are being taught that as well when they are taught about baptism and repentance. Even very young children can get that concept (the analogy used here should be used instead of chewed gum, etc. especially since it is scripturally relevant):

https://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ce108526addab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[crixus]

More falsehood.

Not so. I quoted her word for word. This is her religious upbringing and it is why she felt worthless. Now you're trying to spin this fact by saying the Church teaches elsewhere something else. Well that may be true, but it is beside the point. The point is that these teachings you allude to are clearly not taught to the Children otherwise Elizabeth Smart wouldn't have had those feelings of worthlessness.

We were talking about the rank falsehood of your statement that Mormonism equates virginity with sexual purity

No, that is your attempt to deflect from the fact that you refuse to accept what Smart said. And I already quoted your own sources indicating that virginity can and does represent sexual purity. Either way, it doesn't matter what teachings you pull up because the issue is what the Church taught Elizabeth Smart as a child. Apparently she missed out on all those lessons about how being raped doesn't diminish one's self-worth. No one is saying it is general Church teaching that raped victims are worthless. You and Dan need to stop beating that straw man.

Admit you were wrong and move on. It's good for the soul.

Are you serious? I back up my claims with hard evidence. You're still asserting, deflecting and refusing to acknowledge the plain fact that Elizabeth Smart attributed her religious background to her sad feelings of worthlessness, which led to her unwillingness to escape. This was made perfectly clear in her speech.

[crixus]

Sister Smart even stated that she was saving her sexual experience for marriage, so yes...even in the case of Sister Smart, she realized (and other children do as well) that losing one's virginity in marriage is not the same as being unchaste.

But chastity isn't the issue. The context of Smart's comments suggest she felt worthless in the eyes of a future husband. After all, he'd be the one "chewing" that old gum.

[crixus]

And you can't tell me being a virgin isn't important for young Mormons looking to find their mate. Virginity played an important role in Joseph Smith's doctrine of polygamy as well:

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph .. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him ...

as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. ...

[T]hen shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; ... if she receive not this law ... she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt[.]

[crixus]

Actually we can find just that:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

I'm glad to see that. Was this something in a handout at an event for abused victims or something? Is there anything else more encompassing and prior to 2004? Something we'd expect a 12-15 year old to read and understand?

[crixus]

Here is what I said, "In Mormonism one's virginity is tied to purity and worth in both the eyes of God and society." I never said the virginity and purity were "synonymous" as Scott keeps implying. I don't know why it is so hard to understand the difference between two things that are tied to one another, and are equal or synonymous. But I think I understand Scott's desire to attribute to me something I never said. It serves to deflect from the fact that he refuses to let Elizabeth Smart speak for herself and continues to deny she said what she said.

[crixus]

True. And, given your gross mischaracterizations of my post, rather lethal to your complaint.

If it were lethal to my argument, then why would I gladly concede the point? In reality this is a minor detail and irrelevant to my overall critique of your blog entry. Darren is the one who applied your "corrections" entry to Joanna Brooks. I simply argued it corrected nothing at all. This entry is essentially useless aside from revving up assurances for Mormon readers that, once again, they've been victimized in the media and it therefore presents further evidence that the Church is true!

But since your blog entry engages in a straw man, fails to cite relevant sources, and gives too much credit to an emotional opinion of an anonymous blogger, I don't know what other value there is in it.

Tone it down or you will be removed from the discussion.

[Calm]

But chastity isn't the issue. The context of Smart's comments suggest she felt worthless in the eyes of a future husband. After all, he'd be the one "chewing" that old gum.

The context of her comments:

at 1 min, she speaks of going with him because he must have done something to hurt her family or something else, but she knew that her sister was still alive in the room with her and so she went quietly to protect her.

at 2:15 she states after he raped her, she felt like her "life had no more meaning to it"

at 2:30 she begins to talk about not knowing if she would see her family again, she states on the first day, after realizing they [her parents] would still love her, that nothing that was done to her would change their love and she felt so fortunate that she was able to realize that because of that she was able to make the decision to do whatever was necessary to survive so one day she could be reunited with them

3:25 she state though she always had hope, that there were days she felt she could not stand another second, that she would rather die

she then speaks of her rescue and her confused feelings...

4:40 she speaks of seeing her dad and knowing she would never be treated that way again, that her parents would protect her

5:15 "why didn't you run away?" 5:25 'the answer was very simple, she was scared, petrified, she has been told every day that if she did anything they didn't want her to do, they would kill her and if not her, her family. Since she had seen them kidnapped her, chain her, etc. she believed them.

6:00 her family is her biggest weak spot

6:15 she couldn't stand to think that because of something she did or didn't do, her family suffered for it and that is why she did whatever they said and didn't try to run or scream, etc. (she did try a couple of times she said in an aside)

6:35 She does not regret not having tried harder, not saying something when the police questioned Mitchell and turned away after believing him,

6:55 does she wish she could have been rescued? Absolutely! If she could have shortened her captivity by anything she would have done that, but she doesn't regret not screaming because that was what she felt she had to do.

7:10 one of the most important things to talk about is prevention, there are things that can be taught at school or early one more than (for her) getting in a car with strangers, don't go looking for lost puppies, don't take candy...the more you can teach the better it is.

7:40 talks about an article about the execution a man who had raped a 6 month old, so that demonstrates to her that it is never too young, the younger the better it is. We are not always there for our children so we need to educate them

at 8ish: "Back to my question...I think it goes even beyond fear" for so many children, especially in sex trafficing, it is really their self worth...(this part is quoted elsewhere)

at 9ish: "for that first rape, I felt crushed..."

9:30 "if you can imagine the most special thing being taken away from you--not that was your only value in life--but something that devalued you, can you imagine turning around and going back into society where you're no longer of value, no longer as good as everyone else (chewed gum analogy follows)...how easily that it is to feel you no longer have worth, you no longer have value...

10:40 not asking that question

11:00 education is important for as young as can be reached, is being able to do your times table going to stop you from being kidnapped, etc. probably not, but if you are given choices, skills, permission to fight back, know that you have value and you don't have to live that way, that you have value and no one can take that away...

11:45ish Mother Teresa's quote because we all need hope

[Calm]

This entry is essentially useless aside from revving up assurances for Mormon readers that, once again, they've been victimized in the media and it therefore presents further evidence that the Church is true!

Talk about strawmen

[Calm]

I'm glad to see that. Was this something in a handout at an event for abused victims or something? Is there anything else more encompassing and prior to 2004? Something we'd expect a 12-15 year old to read and understand?

True to the Faith is given out to everyone once they are out of Primary and they are expected to read it, at least in my ward. It can be read or listened to online or be downloaded. It is a standard resource meant to be used in gospel study, to help with lessons and talks, etc.

That you are unaware of it demonstrates that you have little knowledge about what and how the Church actually teaches chastity.

This book is designed as a companion to studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets. It contains brief, simple statements on gospel doctrines and principles, arranged alphabetically. It is particularly helpful for youth, young single adults, and new members.

http://store.lds.org/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product3_715839595_10557_21141_-1__195550 Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

1981:

Now, while these feelings relate to a robbery, they are—in a much lesser degree—similar to those feelings that one might experience having been the victim of a rape. Tragically, this terrible crime is increasing in frequency and volume in our societies, and sadly, some Latter-day Saints have been its victims. How does one feel when her body has been violated as was the home, when that which had been held most dear was taken? How must one feel when, regardless of her resistance, she has been overcome and made the object of one who is striking out against self, others, society, and the Lord?...But an innocent victim should still consider herself acceptable before the Lord. Toward those who malign or defile, she should have in her mind the attitude: “And ye ought to say in your hearts—Let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.” (D&C 64:11.) This leaves her free of additional emotional injury or hatred, for she is leaving the judgment to God. In his judgment the real victim will be the perpetrator of the crime.

The scriptures tell us that virtue is to be cherished, that a virtuous woman is loved of the Lord. And as far back as the Mosaic Law the scriptures discuss the idea that when a woman is the unwilling victim of rape, she is innocent of crime; she is innocent of sin. From Deuteronomy 22:25–26 [Deut. 22:25–26], we read:

“But if a man find a … damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

<a name="15" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.22em; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); ">

“But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.”

Yes, the unfortunate and innocent victim is innocent before the Lord. We recognize that such an individual feels guilt, feels she has lost that which she cannot regain. But we hope within that person’s mind will reside the complete assurance that the Lord is just, that she is still a child of God, and that God loves her. We also hope that family and friends would have only an increase of love for her...Perhaps the most significant step that one can take to increase that protection is to realize that the innocent victim of a crime is still acceptable before the Lord, that she may still have faith in him, that his concern for her has not lessened, and that her standing in the Church has not diminished. This truth, embedded in her heart, will rekindle within her a confidence in the Lord, in Church leaders, in good men, and in herself, confidence she will need in order to realize her fullest potential....Prayerfully seek the counsel of the Lord in the help you extend, and reassure her of the Lord’s love for her. Remember, she feels almost total loss of self-worth. She may feel like a discarded, misused object, rather than the incredibly priceless child of God she is. She will need the inspired strength of priesthood power to sustain her. A blessing would be most appropriate. Her emotions are likely to be at the breaking point for an extended period of time while you strive to rebuild her confidence. You must not fail her in any commitment you make, or her confidence in men may never be regained. This is very serious, and all such brethren are responsible before God in all their counseling and priesthood responsibilities.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=166&sourceId=1e2aaeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Calm]

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

It was important for her to talk to someone she respected and who had the proper authority, someone who could help correct her thinking and remove any guilt from her troubled heart. My husband and I immediately had our daughter speak with our bishop. He was a loving and gentle man who assured her she was still pure and worthy and that the sin was the perpetrator’s, not her own.

[teddyaware]

The context of her comments:

at 1 min, she speaks of going with him because he must have done something to hurt her family or something else, but she knew that her sister was still alive in the room with her and so she went quietly to protect her.

at 2:15 she states after he raped her, she felt like her "life had no more meaning to it"

at 2:30 she begins to talk about not knowing if she would see her family again, she states on the first day, after realizing they [her parents] would still love her, that nothing that was done to her would change their love and she felt so fortunate that she was able to realize that because of that she was able to make the decision to do whatever was necessary to survive so one day she could be reunited with them

3:25 she state though she always had hope, that there were days she felt she could not stand another second, that she would rather die

she then speaks of her rescue and her confused feelings...

4:40 she speaks of seeing her dad and knowing she would never be treated that way again, that her parents would protect her

5:15 "why didn't you run away?" 5:25 'the answer was very simple, she was scared, petrified, she has been told every day that if she did anything they didn't want her to do, they would kill her and if not her, her family. Since she had seen them kidnapped her, chain her, etc. she believed them.

6:00 her family is her biggest weak spot

6:15 she couldn't stand to think that because of something she did or didn't do, her family suffered for it and that is why she did whatever they said and didn't try to run or scream, etc. (she did try a couple of times she said in an aside)

6:35 She does not regret not having tried harder, not saying something when the police questioned Mitchell and turned away after believing him,

6:55 does she wish she could have been rescued? Absolutely! If she could have shortened her captivity by anything she would have done that, but she doesn't regret not screaming because that was what she felt she had to do.

7:10 one of the most important things to talk about is prevention, there are things that can be taught at school or early one more than (for her) getting in a car with strangers, don't go looking for lost puppies, don't take candy...the more you can teach the better it is.

7:40 talks about an article about the execution a man who had raped a 6 month old, so that demonstrates to her that it is never too young, the younger the better it is. We are not always there for our children so we need to educate them

at 8ish: "Back to my question...I think it goes even beyond fear" for so many children, especially in sex trafficing, it is really their self worth...(this part is quoted elsewhere)

at 9ish: "for that first rape, I felt crushed..."

9:30 "if you can imagine the most special thing being taken away from you--not that was your only value in life--but something that devalued you, can you imagine turning around and going back into society where you're no longer of value, no longer as good as everyone else (chewed gum analogy follows)...how easily that it is to feel you no longer have worth, you no longer have value...

10:40 not asking that question

11:00 education is important for as young as can be reached, is being able to do your times table going to stop you from being kidnapped, etc. probably not, but if you are given choices, skills, permission to fight back, know that you have value and you don't have to live that way, that you have value and no one can take that away...

11:45ish Mother Teresa's quote because we all need hope

Good work, cal

[Calm]

The LDS has done exactly what Sister Smart suggests be done, offer further education of young children...whether members have taken advantage of it as much as they should is another thing: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/service/serving-in-the-church/relief-society/RS-SG2-SafeguardingOurChildren-eng.pdf?lang=eng

These RS manuals were issued in 1989.

If a child is sexually assaulted, parents should reassure the child that he has done nothing wrong. They should also tell him that they will protect him from further abuse. It is important that parents seriously consider what the child says, even if the offender is a friend, relative, or neighbor. The child, as well as the parents, may need counseling. If the child is hurt physically, parents should take him to a doctor for examination. If he seems emotionally affected or behaves differently, he should also be seen by a doctor. Parents should contact the police for further instructions. (Their child may not be the only one affected.) Parents need to remain calm and reassuring for the child's sake. Each stake or district should have social services specialists who can give help. Bishops can provide the necessary information about them.

"A long-term effect of being an abused child is a tremendous feeling of guilt. . . . When children realize they are not to blame, they are able to let go of guilt, regain self-confidence, and eventually help others deal with similar problems" (Marilynn Smith, "Mormon Forum," Church News, 14 Sept. 1986, p. 15).

Conclusion

It is of utmost importance that parents teach children to protect themselves before anything unfortunate happens. It is equally important that parents do this teaching in a calm manner that will not arouse fear or undue apprehension in a child. Parents must be realistic and help their children to protect themselves. It is part of their stewardship.

Belle S. Spafford, former General President of the Relief Society, said: "Children should be cherished with the strongest bonds of affection. . . . No effort should be too much, no sacrifice too great to protect them from evil and preserve them in righteousness. . . . The love and the sanctity of the home should be zealously safeguarded" (quoted in Spencer W. Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 19721, P- 119).

Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Good work, cal

Thank you.

[Calm]

If Dan had read Smart's actual speech...

Do you have an actual transcript of the entire speech?

[Calm]

Because some anonymous blogger says so? Who are all these "certain commentators" leaping on a slanted story, aside from Dan himself?

Hardly "some anonymous blogger"

She links to the article she wrote in response:

http://www.deseretne...king-forum.html

I even received emails from a few people frustrated that I didn’t focus my story in the Deseret News around that.

But do you know why I didn’t? Because that’s not what Smart focused on.

I watched the video, several times.

The message that I gathered from the elegant Smart was the importance of educating children about human trafficking, teaching them to be prepared because parents won’t be able to be with their children every second of the day (or night), and also to instill in these children a strong sense of self-worth, so should they ever (heaven forbid) be trafficked they would have the strength to overcome.

Smart was raped. She felt worthless because of it. I don’t think she would have felt less worthless if her school teacher hadn’t taught that abstinence before marriage is ideal, or if her parents hadn’t taught her the sacredness of intimacy. In fact, it was her parents love and teachings that pulled her through her nine months in captivity.

She came to the realization that her parents would love her no matter what. No matter what had happened to her, or what she had been through, they would love her. And the hope of being reunited with her loving parents kept her going.

There was no hidden agenda about discontinuing abstinence instruction. Her message was one of hope. It was centered around the value of a soul, and how important it is that every child know their value.

http://createwritebalance.com/2013/05/08/dont-believe-everything-you-read-in-the-news/

As I cited in my minute by minute, at times quoted, mostly paraphrased report of her entire talk, not just selected quotes that crixus has been supplying. I would love to see the entire transcript crixus is pulling his quotes from, btw.

Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Do you have an actual transcript of the entire speech?

I have googled for a transcript of her talk by using various phrases that were not in the quotes used by newspapers and others. So far nothing has come up.

Makes me wonder where crixus managed to read the talk he is condemning Dan for not reading.

And got to wonder how he missed that the "anonymous blogger" as the DN reporter since she mentioned that in her blog and linked to the piece she wrote. Did he read the blog that Dan linked to or just make assumptions about it?

Edited May 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

If it were lethal to my argument, then why would I gladly concede the point?

Because you're not reasonable?

In reality this is a minor detail and irrelevant to my overall critique of your blog entry.

My alleged misrepresentation of, and attack on, Joanna Brooks -- whom, as you now admit, I hadn't so much as mentioned -- has been one of your recurring themes.

Darren is the one who applied your "corrections" entry to Joanna Brooks.

So it's somewhat puzzling that you claimed I had done so.

This entry is essentially useless aside from revving up assurances for Mormon readers that, once again, they've been victimized in the media and it therefore presents further evidence that the Church is true!

You simply cannot plausibly claim to have actually derived all of that from my little 431-word blog post.

It's easily accessible, by the way, and absolutely anybody is free to read through it and to see how vacuous your characterization of it is:

http://www.patheos.c...e-and-rape.html

But since your blog entry engages in a straw man, fails to cite relevant sources, and gives too much credit to an emotional opinion of an anonymous blogger, I don't know what other value there is in it.

What ridiculous, and ridiculously counterfactual, objections. And it "fails to cite relevant sources"? What in the world do you think it is? A term paper? I supplied a link, which, in turn, provides other links. You can put your copy of Turabian away.

.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Daniel Peterson