Danzo Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 34 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Funny how when something is poorly said from the pulpit we should excuse it as a simple mistake, or we are "being an offender for a word" or we should stop criticizing the Lord's anointed, but when something similar is yelled from the gallery it is totally inappropriate. You think it is appropriate to Yell things out from the gallery?
Robert F. Smith Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 44 minutes ago, cinepro said: .......................................? This whole thing should have stopped when Elder Cook was writing his talk and thought to himself "What's a nice way to say 'rape'"? It appears that his objective was to compare consensual and non-consensual immorality in order to be ironic about it -- his concern being consensual immorality, which was his main burden, and which may be a more pernicious and widespread problem. I don't think that the comparison would have worked at all if he had simply said "rape." 2
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted April 3, 2018 Popular Post Posted April 3, 2018 17 minutes ago, mtomm said: If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. One of my favorite Sacrament Meeting talks ever was a guy who was speaking about the creation. He must have said "orgasm" at least 20 times. He was intending to say "organism". Small, but important difference 7
HappyJackWagon Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It appears that his objective was to compare consensual and non-consensual immorality in order to be ironic about it -- his concern being consensual immorality, which was his main burden, and which may be a more pernicious and widespread problem. I don't think that the comparison would have worked at all if he had simply said "rape." Whoa. You're suggesting that Elder Cook compared consensual and non-consensual in an attempt at being ironic? Really? Wow! :0 3
Jeanne Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 22 minutes ago, mtomm said: If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. I agree. He is not speaking to a stupid people. 1
Jeanne Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Whoa. You're suggesting that Elder Cook compared consensual and non-consensual in an attempt at being ironic? Really? Wow! :0 This just gave me a headache. 1
RevTestament Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: We have the history of Mormon or Moroni saying how the victims of rape had that which is most precious, their virtue, stolen from them. There has also been other older Church comments that imply even in rape situations, the victims may be viewed as immoral as well. So I think it is important these days to use unambiguous phrasing to avoid misunderstanding. I agree Calm, and I think maybe we can come up with a better way to refer to crimes than "non-consensual immorality," and stated as much in my first post. I believe the Lord told Hosea to marry a prostitute, so I don't think we should make women who have experienced rape to feel unworthy or permanently shunned. They are not unworthy of marriage or to have a happy married life. We definitely need to be clear about that. God cannot hold them accountable for something which is not their fault. Rape does not make women a polluted rag. While in the speech of older cultures a woman's virtue may have been besmirched, I think it is clear with God there is no reason for victims to be permanently besmirched nor unhappy. It was culture and expectations which made a virgin desirable - not something necessarily imposed by God. I do see a problem with consensual immorality referring to two people - then it seems the mind will connect non-consensual immorality with two people as well and attribute immorality to the non-consenting party. I think that is clearly not the intent, but is a possible undesired interpretation which better wording may avoid. Perhaps "abusive misconduct" or "abusive crimes" would better fit the bill since the word "abuse" essentially carries with it the non-consensual idea and can include psychological as well as physical forms. Let's take a vote... all those for the phrasing "abusive misconduct." 1
cinepro Posted April 3, 2018 Author Posted April 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: It appears that his objective was to compare consensual and non-consensual immorality in order to be ironic about it -- his concern being consensual immorality, which was his main burden, and which may be a more pernicious and widespread problem. I don't think that the comparison would have worked at all if he had simply said "rape." I agree with "widespread", but if you are suggesting that consensual sex is as pernicious as rape or sexual assault and that was what Elder Cook was trying to convey, then I'll just be glad that people are taking his words at face value and missing his deeper meaning. 1
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 42 minutes ago, mtomm said: If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. Yes, he could have been more direct. As it is, he was apparently attempting to be circumspect, solemn and discreet. Surely there is room for some spectrum of word choice and tone? Particularly on such a sensitive and difficult matter? Thanks, -Smac 3
bluebell Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Funny how when something is poorly said from the pulpit we should excuse it as a simple mistake, or we are "being an offender for a word" or we should stop criticizing the Lord's anointed, but when something similar is yelled from the gallery it is totally inappropriate. People in the gallery aren't invited to speak, they are guests specifically invited to listen. They aren't the Lord's anointed attempting to fulfill their calling and stewardship despite their weaknesses. It makes sense that yelling from the gallery in GC would be open to more criticism. Edited April 3, 2018 by bluebell 4
bluebell Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 52 minutes ago, mtomm said: If President Kimball can say orgasm during conference then surely Elder Cook could have been blunt enough to say rape and/or sexual assault. To be fair, we don't know what kind of reception that got. Maybe Elder Cook was learning from Kimball's mistake? Also, can you provide a link to that talk? 1
smac97 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 Some thoughts by Emily Jensen: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/03/commentary-mormon-apostle-needs-to-clarify-his-remarks-about-nonconsensual-immorality-because-even-unintended-words-can-do-harm/ -Smac 1
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted April 3, 2018 Popular Post Posted April 3, 2018 1 hour ago, cinepro said: It's always nice when the words of the Prophets and Apostles reach a wider audience than the faithful (and critical) listeners that tune in on Conference weekend (or the faithful who get to hear a talk that begins "My talk today is on a talk by Elder ______..." , but I digress.) But it seems one comment from Conference is getting a little more attention than intended. In his talk on Sunday afternoon, Elder Cook made a commendable effort to publicly clarify his support for the recent shift in society to be far less tolerant of rape and sexual assault. But in doing so, he used an unfortunate euphemism to avoid saying "rape" or "sexual assault": While his statement is commendable support for those who have been attacked, it is ultimately an ill-conceived framing of the problem, and it appears to be getting some attention outside of the usual circles: Washington Post - Mormon Leader's Remarks on Sexual Misconduct Draws Criticism The most mystifying aspect of all this is that the word "rape" has been used several times over the years in Conference. So why would he feel the need to parse and soften the statement? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/forgiveness?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/a-doorway-called-love?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church?lang=eng Social engineering There is no way that can be taken as victim-blaming unless you looking for an excuse to see it that way. 5
mtomm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: To be fair, we don't know what kind of reception that got. Maybe Elder Cook was learning from Kimball's mistake? Also, can you provide a link to that talk? Exiled did the heavy lifting already: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng He was the Lord's anointed. Who do you think criticized openly?
bluebell Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, mtomm said: Exiled did the heavy lifting already: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1974/10/god-will-not-be-mocked?lang=eng He was the Lord's anointed. Who do you think criticized openly? Well, if today is any way to judge, anyone who wanted to criticized him openly. But it probably all was done via letter sent to the church office building rather than online and in blogs. 1
mtomm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: Well, if today is any way to judge, anyone who wanted to criticized him openly. But it probably all was done via letter sent to the church office building rather than online and in blogs. Most likely. After which a good secretary would have trashed the letter.
CV75 Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: But it seems one comment from Conference is getting a little more attention than intended. Rather, the redirection of attention. Come on, even the Tribune gets that it's not fundamentally about rape and assault but "anything like unto it"! In the midst of an LDS General Conference filled with big changes within Mormonism, an LDS apostle Sunday addressed a big topic, one drawing headlines inside and outside the faith. Quentin L. Cook pointed to the #MeToo movement, without mentioning it by name, when he said it is “commendable that nonconsensual immorality has been exposed and denounced.” “Such nonconsensual immorality is against the laws of God and of society,” he said. “However, those who understand God’s plan must also oppose consensual immorality, which is also a sin.” Cook decried “the devastation of wickedness and addiction” that is seen “at every turn,” and lamented that “many people no longer feel accountable to God and do not turn to the scriptures or the prophets for guidance.” He declared that “if we as a society would contemplate the consequences of sin, there would be massive public opposition to pornography and the objectification of women.” https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/02/in-an-overture-to-metoo-mormon-apostle-condemns-nonconsensual-immorality/ 1
Jeanne Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 6 minutes ago, mtomm said: Most likely. After which a good secretary would have trashed the letter. Or a bad one...
cinepro Posted April 3, 2018 Author Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Social engineering There is no way that can be taken as victim-blaming unless you looking for an excuse to see it that way. Just so I'm clear, if a woman is sexually assaulted, would you say she has participated in "non-consensual immorality"? If you knew a guy named Bob, and he was dating a woman named Janice, and Bob raped Janice, would you say that Bob and Janice shared non-consensual immorality? Because I think Elder Cook's phrasing sounds great until we think about what it actually means. So I'm just trying to figure out what other people think it means, as applied to real-world situations. Edited April 3, 2018 by cinepro 4
CA Steve Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 34 minutes ago, bluebell said: People in the gallery aren't invited to speak, they are guests specifically invited to listen. They aren't the Lord's anointed attempting to fulfill their calling and stewardship despite their weaknesses. It makes sense that yelling from the gallery in GC would be open to more criticism. Maybe. Where it makes more sense is on this board. Not so much elsewhere. I really can understand how those at the conference are uncomfortable with someone yelling. You are at an event at which certain behaviors are expected and when those behaviors are not observed, people react negatively. But the fact is this person yelling was talking much more clearly and directly about a problem that Elder Cook was trying to deal with also. Some of the reactions I have seen to what Elder Cook said defended him by saying we should overlook it because he is an apostle or how we should not be offended for just a phrase, so to those I would respond, we should expect more from whomever is talking at the pulpit than we do from someone yelling from the gallery, not less.
Jeanne Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 I get it ..kinda. The man made a mistake..a poor choice in words..due to whatever misniformed or uneducatated reality he lives in. So...there needs to be a clarifying response. No woman, man a victim of rape is NOT immoral....but a victim. Fix that.
Stargazer Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, cinepro said: Just so I'm clear, if a woman is sexually assaulted, would you say she has participated in "non-consensual immorality"? Yes, in the same sense that a person being tortured is "participating" in the activity, albeit unwillingly. The word "participation" usually implies consent, but I don't see that it is required element. As an example, see this article from the UK newspaper Daily Mail, where it is written: "There may have been a bit of nuzzling on her part but if you look at Seumas's face, you can see he is not a willing participant." And of course non-consensual immorality does not have to mean "rape" -- it can be something "milder", such as groping. I imagine I am risking outrage by suggesting that groping is milder than rape, but in a reasonable world, it is milder, but still a violation. Edited April 3, 2018 by Stargazer
CA Steve Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 I am also a bit puzzled by the: he was trying to keep it 'G' rated comments. Our own scriptures contain numerous references to violent acts. As has been pointed out by others, even in general conference we have heard orgasm, boobs, sex and so on. Where and who better would it be for our children to hear those terms from than prophets and apostles at conference? Every kid who has a cell phone or has friends with cell phones is subjected to this kind of language all the time. 2
Calm Posted April 3, 2018 Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, cinepro said: Just so I'm clear, if a woman is sexually assaulted, would you say she has participated in "non-consensual immorality"? If you knew a guy named Bob, and he was dating a woman named Janice, and Bob raped Janice, would you say that Bob and Janice shared non-consensual immorality? Because I think Elder Cook's phrasing sounds great until we think about what it actually means. So I'm just trying to figure out what other people think it means, as applied to real-world situations. You don't "share" something non-consensually. If he did not use "share" or "participate", I don't see why anyone needs to justify how the phrases work with them. Edited April 3, 2018 by Calm 2
Recommended Posts