Girls raised in the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This proves my point expressed in this entire thread that this article should never be included in chasity and virtue lessons in young women's.    

Well, I haven't been involved in the discussion here except to offer a suggestion of a possibility as to why the scripture passage speaks of the prisoners as having been robbed of their chastity and virtue. Again, I don't see a rape victim as having lost her chastity by reason of the rape, and I think it unjust to say she has. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No, just no. 

Forced prostitution is a thing. It's called sex slavery. It isn't a form of consent. It often entails rape as a form of initiation...particularly in conservative cultures where virginity is tied to family honor. The women that come out of it have a lot of healing to do and can exhibit symptoms of PTSD. They often exhibit other mental health issues like dissasociation, depression, anxiety, etc. There are prostitutes who "choose" to be such because of hard circumstances. But if they're in a prison camp it's not choice in even that minimal stance. There is very little difference between that and putting a gun to their head. 

 

I do agree that the wording make me wonder if they became sexual slaves. I've also had clients who after sexual abuse often struggle with developing healthy sexual relationships/boundaries as well. In a sense they've been deprived because the circumstances have left some scars on their soul. In these circumstances, therapy, family/loved ones (who are healthy), and the atonement are all tools that can help mend and heal what was broken by anothers cruelty. 

But again, placing this in a general lesson about virtue or chastity seems misplaced. I remember this coming up before and it always felt discordant. It's like if I was teaching about healthy sexuality and started the lesson with a discussion on forced prostitution or rape to have that generally apply. Who does that? 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Then maybe it's a problem with definitions. Maybe the facility at Dachau should not be referred to as a brothel, as doing so dishonors the victims who were brutalized there. 

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there is no consent involved, then it is not, by definition, prostitution. 

http://www.emlii.com/1cd605b7/7-Agonizing-Stories-From-Within-The-Brothels-That-Will-Literally-Shake-You

[Bobbieaware]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe they were. 

But then we are left with the problem of why the scriptural account says they were deprived of chastity and virtue when a woman doesn't lose her chastity by reason of being raped. At least in my mind, she doesn't. Maybe I am unique in that respect. I don't think I am. 

And so you've zeroed in on the essence of this thread's central controversy. I do not believe Mormon was saying these women were no longer morally innocent after being raped  -- for they were still innocent -- but it's just that they lost their innocence in every other way. Rape has a multitude of horrific very real and unavoidable physical and emotional consequence that cannot simply be wished away. Is a virgin still a virgin after being raped? Morally she is, for she is still pure and innocent before God. But even though it's terribly difficult to say, she is no longer physically a virgin. This is all Mormon meant to say. Thinking he meant anything beyond that these innocent women were treated as if they didn't deserve to be Innocent, even though they were, is needlessly opening up a can of vile and toxic worms (no offense intended, as I consider you one of the best and ablest allies in defense of the Church).

Edited September 11, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

And so you've zeroed in on the essence of this thread's central controversy. I do not believe Mormon was saying these women were no longer morally innocent after being raped  -- for they were still innocent -- but it's just that they lost their innocence in every other way. Rape has a multitude of horrific very real and unavoidable can physical and emotional consequence that cannot simply be wished away. Is a virgin still a virgin after being raped? Morally she is, for she is still pure and innocent before God. But even though it's terribly difficult to say, she is no longer physically a virgin. This is all Mormon meant to say. Thinking he meant anything beyond that these innocent women were treated as if they didn't deserve to be Innocent, even though they were, is needlessly opening up a can of vile and toxic worms (no offense intended, as I consider you one of the best and ablest allies in defense of the Church).

The problem is that virginity is not synonymous with chastity and virtue. Yet the scripture very definitely speaks of chastity and virtue with all of their moral implications. Which has led me to wonder if there is something under the surface here. 

It is a conundrum, to be sure. 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have occasionally wondered about the wording in Moroni 9, believing as I do that a woman or girl who is raped does not lose her chastity or virtue in that instance, as she had no control over what happened to her. 

This has made me wonder whether rape was involved in what was done to the Lamanite women taken prisoners that Mormon speaks of here or whether there was some degree of consent involved.

I'm not saying definititively this is what happened; I'm only suggesting the possibility. But we have at least one modern-day example of such a thing occurring. I was in Germany a couple of months ago covering the European tour of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. While there we visited Dachau, the site of one of the Nazi concentration camps. I learned that there had been a brothel in the camp staffed by women who were among the prisoners there. Where prostitution is involved, one cannot say the sex is forcible, or not entirely so. Could not the same sort of thing have prevailed between these wicked Nephites and some of the Lamanite women they took prisoner? In that event, it would be accurate to say the women had been deprived of chastity and virtue because there would have been consent involved. 

This seems like an extreme attempt to jump through hoops and read into the text something that is not there in order to make justify a bad passage of the text. 

[Teancum]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe they were. 

But then we are left with the problem of why the scriptural account says they were deprived of chastity and virtue when a woman doesn't lose her chastity by reason of being raped. At least in my mind, she doesn't. Maybe I am unique in that respect. I don't think I am. 

Because the verse was not inspired.

[maklelan]

On 9/2/2016 at 8:36 AM, Storm Rider said:

I missed the brochure that the Church published on the chewing gum.  Could you please point it out to me.  If by chance, the Church of Jesus Christ did not publish this brochure is it possible that the Church is not responsible?

My mother told my sisters that when you give the milk away for free no one will ever buy the cow.  Do I think my sisters were damaged by this?  Do I think that they learned something of value from this little saying of my mom's?  Yes, they did.

If virtue of any value and should we spend any time teaching that virtue has merit?  If not, should we just teach that they should take the pill every day or make sure that they use contraception as they are responding to their natural desires?

Do you think it is possible that Elizabeth Smart is not the normal experience for all young girls?  In event that another girl is kidnapped from her home and raped what do you think she should understand?  Do you see any difference between someone who is raped and someone who just as sex on Friday night with their boyfriend of the last two weeks?

How much time do you spend being anxious about make believe boogeymen?  

ETA: I responded below to an early comment without reading through the dozen+ pages of comments, so this may have already been discussed at length:

The Church is responsible for this one. It certainly didn't make any attempt to offer a corrective, and it absolutely knew those analogies were being used. We also have The Miracle of Forgiveness saying a rape victim who didn't fight to the death might have to repent for the rape, and Hinckley sharing a quote over the pulpit about a young soldier saying he knew his mother would rather he come home in a box than "unclean." Using the "sin next to murder" quote to emphasize how very important and eternally consequential chastity is is another example. This is all very dangerous rhetoric that has no place in our Church but was absolute institutional for many years. I wrote about this on my blog almost three years ago:

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/when-religious-rhetoric-kills/

Edited September 11, 2016 by maklelan

[Calm]

Scott, is it rape if a woman is in prison and does not give her consent to have sex and fights back, but is forced to by one of her captors because he can physically overpower her, a man who she knows will kill her if he feels Iike it, but she fights back anyway?

Is it rape if she is drugged by this man/guard to the point of incompetence and lack of true awareness what is happening?

Is if rape if she is beaten so badly she is only partly aware of what is going on around her?

Is it rape if she is beaten so much overtime she is frozen with fear when the man comes to rape her and unable to resist and therefore she is no longer beaten?

Is it rape if she does not resist because a rapist has a knife to her throat and will slice it if she does?

Is it rape if a man holds a knife at her throat and tells her that he will kill her if she doesn't have sex with another man?

Is it rape if he shows her the knife, tells her he will kill her if she doesn't do what he says and he stands by the door watching her have sex with another man?

Is it rape if he threatens her with the knife and leaves the room while she is having sex with another man

Is it rape if he threatens her with a knife, says she belongs to him and will have sex with anyone he tells her to have it with in the future and if she ever in the future doesn't do what he says he will kill her, but he only says it once and she believes this man has total control and power over her as long as she is in the prison or elsewhere under his supervision, he owns her iow, she is his sex slave?

Is it rape if in all these examples this man is a pimp and takes money or favors from the men having sex or sex is given as a reward?

Is it rape if the place she is imprisoned is filled with other women in the same horror, who are forced to dress up beforehand or be beaten and since the main purpose of the building Is for men to have sex people call it a brothel and the women in it prostitutes because their bodies are old for sex?

If at any point it is no longer rape in your view, please explain why.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 9/7/2016 at 0:43 AM, Bobbieaware said:

Here is the verse of scripture in question:

9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after deprivingthem of that which was most dear and precious ABOVE ALL THINGS, which is chastity and virtue-- (Moroni 9:9)

Perhaps you could provide your own exegesis of the above verse?

I haven't kept up with this thread or any thread for a few days. Life got busy. So some of this may sound repetitive and I'm going to keep it short.

See the response to Scott Loyd to get a basic gist. Not super interested in giving an exegesis. I asked, because you tied this to Alma, not mormon and moroni. 

Quote

 

I don't know what world you're living in, but in the one I inhabit there are more and more women having children out of wedlock; more and more couples living together and having sex without being married; more and more people who think chastity and "saving one's self for marriage" is a big joke;; more and more people having premarital sex and thinking there's absolutely wrong with it; more and more people routinely cheating on their spouses; more and more people addicted to pornography; more and more women having abortions as a form of birth control because too many conceived as a consequence of a casual attitude toward sex; more and more children of the nations being sexualized at earlier and earlier ages; more and more children -- even some as early as the first grade -- being taught in school that sexual perversion is normal; etc.

 

 

Ha! I live in a world where all but abortions have directly effected me and are apart of my day-to-day. I don't need someone else to tell me it's a problem. It's a problem. I don't disagree with that, I disagree  with some of the over-the-top language you've used in discussing the topic. 

Quote

 

President Benson said sexual sin is the sin second only to murder in gravity IN THE EYES OF GOD. As men ripen in iniquity, they become blind to the seriousness of sexual transgression, but the unchangeable God is not influenced nor swayed by the fashions of fickle men, but what he sees is a multitude of the blind leading even greater hosts of the blind to edge closer and closer to the precipice of destruction. This is how the devil works: he leads the children of men down to hell with exceedingly great care. And how is that diabolical care made manifest? It's in guiding the transition from relative righteousness to wickedness to happen so gradually that it's only a prophet of God bearing down in pure and harsh testimon who can hope to awaken those who have gone spiritually blind and insentient from their sleep of death.

 

 

I have a problem with the over-generalization of that verse to mean that ALL sexual sin is second only to murder (Alma 39). It doesn't help and the unnecessary shame can actually reinforce lesser sexual sins. For example, not all people (read as not most) who view porn have a porn addiction. But I've had several clients believe that they had one, even though they didn't. These also believed they were doing something second to murder. Because it's not. And when they can let go of the idea that they are, actually look at the verses and see was sin was considered second, and learn that just as there are differing levels of violence there are differing levels of sexual sin, the more likely they are to begin to see real change in their behaviors. Much of this was tied to this all-or-nothing cataclysmic dialogue that we can get in the church around sex. Acknowlegding what is sin is important. But having nuance and mercy is just as important.

 

Last quick thought: I'm aware that means I disagree with Benson. I'm okay with that and still generally believe he was a prophet of God. As I noted in a previous post now buried in this thread, there are a number of things that are more cultural messages than gospel truth around sex and sexuality. And these have sometimes (particularlly in the past) found their way in talks by higher authorities. This does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I just want us to have a message that would actually work to better support the LoC while fostering healthy sexual development.  

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem is that virginity is not synonymous with chastity and virtue. Yet the scripture very definitely speaks of chastity and virtue with all of their moral implications. Which has led me to wonder if there is something under the surface here. 

There are many cultures that do indeed equate virginity with chastity and virtue.  

Women may be killed for being raped because the women have brought dishonor on the family.  In the Bible if a woman is raped in the city, she is held as responsible for the rape as the rapist because she did not cry out while in the country where she might not be heard she is held guilt free even though in both cases she might have been in fear of her life and knew if the guy chose to kill her it would take too long for someone to come and they wouldn't be able to save her...that is if they cared enough to even come in the first place and tried to stop it rather than join in.

Just because our society does not equate it, it does not require Mormon's society to have the same standards.

If you do not wish to believe the verse has been cherry picked from a context which has loss of virginity somehow twisted by a different culture's rigid and unreasonable standards into a loss of chastity as we understand chastity (they could have chosen death, therefore it was consensual) because virginity is irrationally made to be equivalent to chastity; then the other option is to give Mormon some credit and believe he was speaking of chastity in a different way then we do, such that his form of chastity is the attribute that is somehow made equivalent to the other rather than the reverse, equivalent to virginity and thus loss can be nonconsensual by this standard...but then his form of chastity is not equivalent to our form, which must include moral agency.

-----

The scriptures do teach things we believe are morally wrong and an error of their society (for example, spare the rod and spoil the child) and that I hope you do not feel the need to rationalize for modern day usage even if you choose not to condemn individuals for understanding life through the lens of their culture.  I do not.  If Mormon saw chastity as virginity, I don't blame him, but his culture.  His people were out there murdering people, forcing victims to eat their fathers, raping young women.  It was not a moral society which would care about teaching moral responsibility very much, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was heavy into blame shifting.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

Scott, is it rape if a woman is in prison and does not give her consent to have sex and fights back, but is forced to by one of her captors because he can physically overpower her, a man who she knows will kill her if he feels Iike it, but she fights back anyway?

Is it rape if she is drugged by this man/guard to the point of incompetence and lack of true awareness what is happening?

Is if rape if she is beaten so badly she is only partly aware of what is going on around her?

Is it rape if she is beaten so much overtime she is frozen with fear when the man comes to rape her and unable to resist and therefore she is no longer beaten?

Is it rape if she does not resist because a rapist has a knife to her throat and will slice it if she does?

Is it rape if a man holds a knife at her throat and tells her that he will kill her if she doesn't have sex with another man?

Is it rape if he shows her the knife, tells her he will kill her if she doesn't do what he says and he stands by the door watching her have sex with another man?

Is it rape if he threatens her with the knife and leaves the room while she is having sex with another man

Is it rape if he threatens her with a knife, says she belongs to him and will have sex with anyone he tells her to have it with in the future and if she ever in the future doesn't do what he says he will kill her, but he only says it once and she believes this man has total control and power over her as long as she is in the prison or elsewhere under his supervision, he owns her iow, she is his sex slave?

Is it rape if in all these examples this man is a pimp and takes money or favors from the men having sex or sex is given as a reward?

Is it rape if the place she is imprisoned is filled with other women in the same horror, who are forced to dress up beforehand or be beaten and since the main purpose of the building Is for men to have sex people call it a brothel and the women in it prostitutes because their bodies are old for sex?

If at any point it is no longer rape in your view, please explain why.

I think I've consistently held that it is rape if it is non-consensual. 

And I've already suggested that it is a misnomer to call the Dachau facility a "brothel." It can certainly be misleading. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are many cultures that do indeed equate virginity with chastity and virtue.  

Women may be killed for being raped because the women have brought dishonor on the family.  In the Bible if a woman is raped in the city, she is held as responsible for the rape as the rapist because she did not cry out while in the country where she might not be heard she is held guilt free even though in both cases she might have been in fear of her life and knew if the guy chose to kill her it would take too long for someone to come and they wouldn't be able to save her...that is if they cared enough to even come in the first place and tried to stop it rather than join in.

Just because our society does not equate it, it does not require Mormon's society to have the same standards.

If you do not wish to believe the verse has been cherry picked from a context which has loss of virginity somehow twisted by a different culture's rigid and unreasonable standards into a loss of chastity as we understand chastity (they could have chosen death, therefore it was consensual) because virginity is irrationally made to be equivalent to chastity; then the other option is to give Mormon some credit and believe he was speaking of chastity in a different way then we do, such that his form of chastity is the attribute that is somehow made equivalent to the other rather than the reverse, equivalent to virginity and thus loss can be nonconsensual by this standard...but then his form of chastity is not equivalent to our form, which must include moral agency.

That's a possibility. 

But I believe the Book of Mormon was ordained to come forth in our day and, that being the case, Joseph Smith was given language to use in the translation that would be accurate according to our understanding. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 I do not believe Mormon was saying these women were no longer morally innocent after being raped  -- for they were still innocent -- but it's just that they lost their innocence in every other way. Rape has a multitude of horrific very real and unavoidable physical and emotional consequence that cannot simply be wished away. Is a virgin still a virgin after being raped? Morally she is, for she is still pure and innocent before God. But even though it's terribly difficult to say, she is no longer physically a virgin. This is all Mormon meant to say. 

So you are saying that Mormon meant virginity and the physical and emotional innocence that most often exists hand in hand with virginity when he used the terms chastity and virtue to describe what they were deprived of?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's a possibility. 

But I believe the Book of Mormon was ordained to come forth in our day and, that being the case, Joseph Smith was given language to use in the translation that would be accurate according to our understanding. 

Most likely, but if what we need to understand is Mormon's way of thinking about chastity, isn't it possible that his understanding was affected by his culture just as ours is?  Or do you believe God managed the translation to remove anything inconsistent with our culture?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've consistently held that it is rape if it is non-consensual. 

And I've already suggested that it is a misnomer to call the Dachau facility a "brothel." It can certainly be misleading. 

I had not seen your later posts by the time I posted this, got interrupted.

Just to be clear, you are removing your suggestion that either the women at Dachau or the Nephite women were in any way involved in consensual sex?  

Edited September 11, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most likely, but if what we need to understand is Mormon's way of thinking about chastity, isn't it possible that his understanding was affected by his culture just as ours is?  Or do you believe God managed the translation to remove anything inconsistent with our culture?

I'm open to either possibility. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then maybe it's a problem with definitions. Maybe the facility at Dachau should not be referred to as a brothel, as doing so dishonors the victims who were brutalized there. 

Do you still believe that if it is prostitution that it is consensual?  If so, can you please show why you believe the definition of prostitution requires this?  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had not seen your later posts by the time I posted this, got interrupted.

Just to be clear, you are removing your suggestion that either the women at Dachau or the Nephite women were in any way involved in consensual sex?  

Perhaps Dachau was a bad example. 

But I have no way of knowing in detail what went on in Nephite society in 420 AD. I don't think anyone does. 

All I'm doing is exploring possibilities -- and trying to deal with the conundrum of a scriptural passage that appears on its face to equate chastity with virginity. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm open to either possibility. 

So you believe that Captain Moroni's giving the prisoners a choice to share allegiance or be killed could be consistent with our culture?

Nephi's killing of Laban?

Nephi giving Zoram a choice to join him or die?

Ammon choosing to go out alone to watch over the flocks and collecting the arms of the robbers as proof?

There are probably others, but I need to see if I can get a few more hours of sleep before noon now my meds are cooperating or I won't be able to get to church.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you still believe that if it is prostitution that it is consensual?  If so, can you please show why you believe the definition of prostitution requires this?  

Prostitution is, by definition, engaging in sex for pay or other reward. It is highly out of the ordinary to voluntarily engage in a business transaction without consenting to it. 

Do you deny this is the case? Or are you and I applying different definitions to prostitution?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Prostitution is, by definition, engaging in sex for pay or other reward? It is highly out of the ordinary to voluntarily engage in a business transaction without consenting to it. 

Do you deny this is the case? Or are you and I applying different definitions to prostitution?

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is astounding.   

Please read http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/Hampton-Drawing the line.pdf

http://nomas.org/does-consensual-prostitution-exist/

Edited September 11, 2016 by bsjkki
Added link

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

trying to deal with the conundrum of a scriptural passage that appears on its face to equate chastity with virginity. 

Personally I believe the use of virtue/chastity to be a poetic euphemism for virginity.
If I understand correctly (and I am open to correction) that is a common occurrence in early middle eastern culture that may have been shared by the Nephites.  Don't Judaism, Islam, and other cultures originating in that area refer to biological virginity poetically as "virtue".

Perhaps all this confusion is coming from taking too literal a view of these words.  I don't think anyone (including God or his prophets) think that a woman can be deprived of her personal virtue by rape.  This is almost certainly nothing more than a cultural euphemism that has been misapplied by some.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you believe that Captain Moroni's giving the prisoners a choice to share allegiance or be killed could be consistent with our culture?

Nephi's killing of Laban?

Nephi giving Zoram a choice to join him or die?

Ammon choosing to go out alone to watch over the flocks and collecting the arms of the robbers as proof?

There are probably others, but I need to see if I can get a few more hours of sleep before noon now my meds are cooperating or I won't be able to get to church.

I said I was open to either possibility. 

But each of the examples you name could be explained in terms of specific commands of God, not necessarily indigenous culture. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Prostitution is, by definition, engaging in sex for pay or other reward. It is highly out of the ordinary to voluntarily engage in a business transaction without consenting to it. 

Do you deny this is the case? Or are you and I applying different definitions to prostitution?

Prostitution is getting money for sex, but just because a pimp may get money, doesn't mean the woman does or the amount in no way affects her desire to have sex and she is only doing it out of fear, but her pimp gives her money so he doesn't have to care for her.

Prostitution can involve sex trafficking, sex slaves.

"MOST PROSTITUTION IS ACTUALLY SEX TRAFFICKING
Many people consider sex trafficking and prostitution completely different.  The world sees sex trafficking as something that the victims are forced into while prostitution is seen as an occupation that people willingly do but this is not true.  Studies have shown that as much as 95% of prostituted women want out of prostitution but can't leave but due to circumstances like having no other job skills, needing to be able to provide food and shelter for themselves and possibly family, and being under the control of their pimp (2).  If they cannot leave, just like how victims of sex trafficking are unable to leave, does that not mean that prostitution is just another type of sex trafficking?   Both sex trafficking and prostitution prey on women and girls who are vulnerable due to poverty, discrimination and violence (3)."

http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org/sex-trafficking.html

Edited September 11, 2016 by Calm