Marginal Gains Posted April 7, 2018 Posted April 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Festus said: It would help her case if she could keep her story straight. She claims he penetrated and raped her, but in the interview she did with him in December, she said he didn't because he couldn't get an erection. But not getting your story straight is a sign of authenticity.... Quote Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented. https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng
Calm Posted April 7, 2018 Posted April 7, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Festus said: It would help her case if she could keep her story straight. She claims he penetrated and raped her, but in the interview she did with him in December, she said he didn't because he couldn't get an erection.... From the recording transcript at MormonLeaks: Do you remember the movies in the basement? The DVD, the VHS player and the TV? No. Do you remember tearing my blouse, pulling up my skirt, ripping the back of my skirt and trying to rape me? But you didn't, because you didn't have a full erection. You don't remember that? She may have been hoping he would admit to attempted rape/molestor where he would resist being called a rapist. Given that would pretty much rate the same in terms of the Church even if legally attempted rape is a lesser crime, it would be a smart move...he thinks he is going to be exposed or he is trying to help her heal as he claims in the tape, but he stays relatively safe even so. Otoh... He didn't really admit to anything nonconsensual on the tape. The Florida incident was a woman flirting with him in a swim suit, the other MTC sister missionary was a back rub (can't remember if he stated in the transcript if she asked him, but "frisky" doesn't imply resistance). The Argentina sister missionary, no details are supplied at all iirc. Other than that, he admits he talked to her inappropriately about his sex life and marriage with his first wife. He could claim he had been told he couldn't get a counselor for the traumatized sisters, so he was stuck with the job and was trying to establish a connection by being open about his own issues...Church's fault again. Edited April 7, 2018 by Calm 3
JulieM Posted April 7, 2018 Posted April 7, 2018 6 hours ago, Festus said: It would help her case if she could keep her story straight. She claims he penetrated and raped her, but in the interview she did with him in December, she said he didn't because he couldn't get an erection. Her story hasn’t changed. She thought because he couldn’t complete the act (he pulled out and tried to make himself more erect and that’s when she fought and got away), it wasn’t a rape. But she learned that it was considered a rape (even if not completed) after she talked to an attorney. (She explains this in the press conference.) 2
Recommended Posts