How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

[bOObOO]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

A lot of times it is not a choice.  People can literally be paralyzed with fear. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201405/neuroscientists-discover-the-roots-fear-evoked-freezing

Not being able to fight back is not the same as choosing to not fight back or choosing to not resist.  And I understand that if the victim fought back there is a chance the victim could lose the fight and still get hurt, maybe even killed.

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Again. Your argument is monstrous. A rape victim has absolutely nothing to repent of.  

A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter.  A rapist isn't considered a rapist if the sex partner consents to the sex encounter.

None of the labels can be applied correctly until whatever will happen happens and is over and done with.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

This is not that complicated.  Who do you want to be in control of your own body? What would you do if someone tried to take control of your body and you did not want them to have that control? Would you resist or give in?

I'm sure you could think of an example of how you could lose your virtue involving you allowing someone else to taker it, in which case both of you would be responsible for your lose of it.  I agree that you could get it back.  Repentance is wonderful. 

You really aren't getting it. 

No, no I can't think of one single example where I could lose my virtue from being raped.  Again, you seem to be conflating not resisting with being willing.  That is toxic shame brother - unfortunately that is something that many victims carry with them unnecessarily for the rest of their lives.  You should reconsider.  Don't feed the toxic shame. 

 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Not being able to fight back is not the same as choosing to not fight back or choosing to not resist.  And I understand that if the victim fought back there is a chance the victim could lose the fight and still get hurt, maybe even killed.

Even if they choose not to fight back after weighing the risks, that doesn't mean that they are willing or lose or give away their virtue in anyway.  That is a disgusting belief. 

[Canadiandude]

Just now, bOObOO said:

A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter.  A rapist isn't considered a rapist if the sex partner consents to the sex encounter.

None of the labels can be applied correctly until whatever will happen happens and is over and done with.

You clearly misunderstand consent.

 

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter. 

Do you think that is the equivalent of a women choosing not to fight back?  Even though they are not willing and never gave their consent, you think that they should be judged as a willing participant if they don't fight?

Come on bro!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

SU, could you clarify why this example is an issue? I think I'm missing something. Why wouldn't they be dealt with if they had gone against the rules by letting the opposite sex into their dorm rooms?

Letting someone into your room is not inviting sexual assault (which is what my niece seemed to be implying). Addressing your question, when BYU investigates it’s rape victims (which gladly they discontinued after the practice came to light a couple years ago) and then punishes them with suspension or kicking them out, do you think that encourages them to report and get help or not? The article I linked to (and many more like it) show that men at BYU actively threaten their victims with reporting to the honor code office if they are reported. This system of perverse incentives that enables rapists and disempowers victims was awful and with enough media scrutiny, BYU came to the same conclusion. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

The topic we are discussing is the statement made by Teancum

I’m not saying there are not major issues within the church concerning shame. What I am saying is that the church does not propagate this, but rather the members.

And where do the members learn from? Why hasn’t the book miracle of forgiveness been officially disavowed? I used to work for a major corporation and participated in accident investigations. A couple of decades before I came into my role, industry figured out that blaming individuals, the low man on the totem pole was pointless. It didn’t reduce anything. What led to huge reductions in incidents and injuries was addressing system wide problems that led to individuals failings. 
 

The church (which teaches leader fallibility) has such a toxic relationship with actually admitting fallibility (“we don’t apoligize”) that it allows things like the miracle of forgiveness to fester instead of admitting that the teachings of a prophet were really flawed (we all make mistakes). 
 

As another example consider racism in the church. Because the church never disavowed the racist doctrine of past leaders as late as the 2000’s professor Bott was still teaching it at BYU, and Mormon Doctrine was still being sold at deseret book. If the church had just disavowed it all in 1978 (like they finally did in the essay) how much pain could have been saved. 
 

Unless church leaders take active visible steps to change things they own what members do in their name. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Fether]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Interesting that modern apostles and prophets have a 36 year expiration and their beliefs were a reflection of the times they lived in..  Do you feel the same about apostles who wrote 2000 years ago?  If not, why not.

I’m a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not a member of the church if x-apostle. The examples I am rejecting are examples from non-church sources. we are talking about the church, not personally published opinions of its leaders.
 

If I found the journal of Pres Ezra Taft Benson and it said “all Saints should be republican and fight the evils of socialism”, I wouldn’t take that as direction from God, but the opinion of a man. If it comes from the church, I follow it.

All else is just opinion. Some good, some bad.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Fether

[Fether]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why hasn’t the book miracle of forgiveness been officially disavowed?

For the same reason Harry Potter, Mein Kampf, and Vladimir Putin: Life Coach haven’t. They don’t need to be. People will recommend books, let them.

 

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church (which teaches leader fallibility) has such a toxic relationship with actually admitting fallibility (“we don’t apoligize”) that it allows things like the miracle of forgiveness to fester instead of admitting that the teachings of a prophet were really flawed (we all make mistakes). 
 

As another example consider racism in the church. Because the church never disavowed the racist doctrine of past leaders as late as the 2000’s professor Bott was still teaching it at BYU, and Mormon Doctrine was still being sold at deseret book. If the church had just disavowed it all in 1978 (like they finally did in the essay) how much pain could have been saved. 
 

Unless church leaders take active visible steps to change things they own what members do in their name. 

I can actually agree with you on this. My stance is not that the church had done nothing wrong. I’m simply fighting the idea that the church has systemized shame built into the repentance process they teach. 

[Raingirl]

39 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter.  A rapist isn't considered a rapist if the sex partner consents to the sex encounter.

None of the labels can be applied correctly until whatever will happen happens and is over and done with.

This is idiotic, sick thinking. You are NEVER a willing participant in a rape. And you sure as hell aren’t a “sex partner”. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Preserving your virtue is about preserving your right to determine your actions regarding your morals. Suppose the rapist doesn't have a weapon other than his own body.  Suppose you are physically fit and think there is a good chance you could win a fight.

At what point do you choose to just lay down and have some would-be rapist have his or her way with you?  Would you chance it if you thought you would only get a few bruises and some chaffed skin on your knuckles? How much of a wimp would you be?

Murder is considered as serious a sin as rape. Do you consider the Savior to be somehow wimpy for not putting up a fight? At what point did our Lord just lay down on the cross and let the Romans murder Him? I’m just really not following your logic. 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

Without access to the saving grace that comes through the Atonement of Christ, that is true. Sin equals spiritual death.  But thankfully we don't live in a world that doesn't have access to that saving grace. The Atonement saves us from spiritual death.

If we have gotten onto the path that leads to eternal life through faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation, then we are saved as long as we remain on that path.  Thankfully we are not required to be sinless to remain in that covenant relationship with Christ. 

Sure I understand that this is LDS Doctrine. 

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

No offense, but you don't understand the teachings of the church in the same way that I understand them.  If there is a negative way to look at a teaching or a negative way to spin it, that seems to always be your understanding of it.  I think that bias makes it harder to really understand where I and other members are coming from, when we speak on church teachings.

I understand what you believe quite well since I wholeheartedly believed the same things for the  majority of my life.  I reject these teachings as divine and view them as a human made construct from a human religion.  I finish your comment ironic really.  I don't see you or most believers here considering even in the slightest that  your dogmatic ideas and doctrine may not be true or from God nor understand the view point from a non believer who was a former believer.  I have the experience from both sides really I totally understand why you say what you say.  I just may not agree anymore.  Can you or others say the same towards me?  I don't see it nor do I think so. So if I roll my eyes a bit about the above comments don't be surprised.

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

What harm comes from not repenting of sins?  You know that there is not any answer that I could give you that you would put any stock in.

Maybe, maybe not.

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure you can understand why, having personally experienced the miracle of forgiveness, I don't find this opinion to be a persuasive argument against the doctrine of repentance.

And the antidote from someone who may have given you poison feels pretty good as well.  Also the process of improvement, changing poor behavior, seeking to reconcile with people we may have harmed can give the same miracle and experiance without the religious dogma.

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

And many things that we call man made constructs are sins.  Thankfully, we all get to decide for ourselves which ideologies have merit.  

And you determine this how?

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Thank you for providing these (I would also like a link, but we can’t always get what we want).

https://seesharppress.wordpress.com/2014/08/15/mormonism-and-chastity/

 

5 hours ago, Fether said:

You speak as if this issue permeates through the church today. The most recent reference you have is from a man who died 36 years ago. And, correct me if I’m wrong, each of those statements mentioned were made in a non-church setting. 

I will see what I can find that is more current. I can find many that are in this time frame.  I don't know your age but I grew up with these teachings.  Spencer Kimball was prophet when I was a teen and during my mission and shortly thereafter.  So there are living people that were certainly impacted by these teachings and Kimball's book.  I am one.  Many of my age group are.

Quote

I will happily accept that there is a shame culture in the church. I will happily accept that these statements, made by these long dead apostles/prophets who were forged by their time, are extremely harmful and the affects of them can still be felt today.

So you agree I have a valid point.

 

5 hours ago, Fether said:

 

But I will not accept that the church itself is propagating shame culture. I feel there is no strong evidence for this. If these three 35+ year old statements made In non-official settings this the back bone to your view that the church is pushing shame on its members… well… we don’t have much to talk about.

I will dig out a talk by Elder Bednar about a RM who broke of an engagement with a girl because she had two earrings and that meant she might not follow the  prophet in all things.  And then there is the tattoo issue, and modesty dressing and a talk by then president Oaks on an immodestly dressed girl can be like walking porn.  Sorry but shame culture still exists.  Is it as blatant?  I don't think so.  But it is certainly there.

5 hours ago, Fether said:

I have not read it, nor has anyone ever suggested I read it. It wasn’t even allowed in my mission.

It was one a few books allowed in mine and almost every bishop I know, including me when I was one, had a copy in their office and bishops often gave to the those seeking to repent.  I rarely did that because I hated the book the first four times I read it.

This really is one of the problems I have with the church.  You blithely dismiss these past teachings by those considered prophets, seers and revelators. Yet when they taught these things member were expected to believe their words and follow them. Great that the Church does not sell Kimball's book anymore. Yet the damage is done and you and the church cannot simply dismiss it as old and outdated teachings.  Why trust anything from the current prophets mouth when 20 year from now it can just be dismissed like you are now.

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Please show me where in the church handbook or in any church literature that it says bishops should prove and ask explicit questions about sexual experiences. 
 

From what I can see, this is a failure of bishops, not the church.

The church is responsible for teaching, training and controlling their leaders. If the don't it is their error, sin and moral failure. You can't skirt this responsibility so easily.

5 hours ago, Fether said:

I will concede that I believe Bishops should be better trained. I can get on that hill

Good.

 

 

5 hours ago, Fether said:

Sexual sin is next to murder.

No its not.

5 hours ago, Fether said:

 

 

However, Shame has nothing to do with this. Shame comes when you see yourself ad evil, and not the sin. This comes down to poor teaching and false analogies permeates through culture. Not the church

The church is responsible for its culture and correcting things that are bad, harmful and immoral in its culture.

5 hours ago, Fether said:

As for everything about being better to be dead than to sin. This isn’t a new or obscure teaching. It comes from scripture.

Matthew 18:6 - “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Mark 9:43 - “if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched”

Mark 14:21 - “but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”

3 Nephi 28:34-35 1 “And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;
And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come?”

And such an approach is shaming.  But the passage from Mark is speaking of one thing specifically.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m not saying there are not major issues within the church concerning shame. What I am saying is that the church does not propagate this, but rather the members.

The church is its members.  And words from leaders create this oft times.  Oaks said girls can be walking porn.  Hinckley put out the two earring idea.  Bednar justified an RM dumping his fiance because of two earrings.  If the members of the  church propagate it is the Church and if the leaders don't correct it and even create it (I refer you to Kimball and crew) then its on them.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Letting someone into your room is not inviting sexual assault (which is what my niece seemed to be implying). Addressing your question, when BYU investigates it’s rape victims (which gladly they discontinued after the practice came to light a couple years ago) and then punishes them with suspension or kicking them out, do you think that encourages them to report and get help or not? The article I linked to (and many more like it) show that men at BYU actively threaten their victims with reporting to the honor code office if they are reported. This system of perverse incentives that enables rapists and disempowers victims was awful and with enough media scrutiny, BYU came to the same conclusion. 

Got it. I read your earlier post again. I misread your verbiage to mean something else.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’m a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not a member of the church if x-apostle. The examples I am rejecting are examples from non-church sources. we are talking about the church, not personally published opinions of its leaders.
 

If I found the journal of Pres Ezra Taft Benson and it said “all Saints should be republican and fight the evils of socialism”, I wouldn’t take that as direction from God, but the opinion of a man. If it comes from the church, I follow it.

All else is just opinion. Some good, some bad.

I think the problem many are having is trying to figure out what is opinion and what is doctrine.  That is probably true with those who wrote scripture as well.  Certainly Paul put in a lot of opinion in his writings such as prohibiting wearing gold, make up, women not praying in church etc.  It is not like those apostles and prophets preface their remarks with "this is my opinion" or "This comes from God."  There has been a LOT of beliefs that were suppose to be from God that later turned out to be just opinion.  

Of course one is suppose to use the Spirit to figure that out.  But within the Church the Spirit seems to tell one person one thing and another person another.  Peopleseem to be tossed to and fro as to what is doctrine and what is opinion.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not really a spelling coincidence. The word “atonement” is English and was created specifically for Bible translations. The spelling is pretty deliberate. I remember reading once that it was one of only a few unique theological words in English not borrowed from other languages. Not sure if that is still believed to be true though.

Just an FYI….We need to be careful not assume words translated into “Atonement” always mean “at one” or to unite or we may be importing Christian beliefs into Judaism that aren’t actually there. 
 

https://youtu.be/-hVIzks_e8I

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Calm

[Fether]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I will see what I can find that is more current. I can find many that are in this time frame.  I don't know your age but I grew up with these teachings.  Spencer Kimball was prophet when I was a teen and during my mission and shortly thereafter.  So there are living people that were certainly impacted by these teachings and Kimball's book.  I am one.  Many of my age group are.

It’s not about how current it is. It’s about the source it comes from. Your claim was that the church has built in shame into the repentance process they teach. Find a church spur e that supports this claim and we can talk.

 

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you agree I have a valid point.

I agree that there are major issues in the church. But it is come almost entirely from culture. The church today does not teach these polluted things, they teach the exact opposite.

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

will dig out a talk by Elder Bednar about a RM who broke of an engagement with a girl because she had two earrings and that meant she might not follow the  prophet in all things.  And then there is the tattoo issue, and modesty dressing and a talk by then president Oaks on an immodestly dressed girl can be like walking porn.  Sorry but shame culture still exists.  Is it as blatant?  I don't think so.  But it is certainly there.

No need to. I actually agree with these sentiments. I’ve chosen not to date girls because they swear, drink alcohol, actively break the LOC, and other reasons. Not saying such people are not worthy of dating… it’s just an “equally yoked thing”.

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This really is one of the problems I have with the church.  You blithely dismiss these past teachings by those considered prophets, seers and revelators. Yet when they taught these things member were expected to believe their words and follow them. Great that the Church does not sell Kimball's book anymore. Yet the damage is done and you and the church cannot simply dismiss it as old and outdated teachings.  Why trust anything from the current prophets mouth when 20 year from now it can just be dismissed like you are now.

I’m not ignoring these awful teachings. My point is that The Church, as the organization I was baptized into and made covenants in, did not recommend these books

28 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church is responsible for teaching, training and controlling their leaders. If the don't it is their error, sin and moral failure. You can't skirt this responsibility so easily.

I can sympathize with you on this point (minus the “control” part). I do think there needs to be more training for leaders.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bOObOO said:

In this context, when someone tries to rape someone else, what they are trying to take away from the would-be victim is his or her dignity, propriety, fidelity, integrity, honor, courage, and control over his or her own body. You would either fight or give in.

They might be trying to, but that doesn’t mean they can in any meaningful way.
 

You can’t take away any of those things except the physical control over the body. The others are states of being, part of someone’s character that are developed by the person acting with honor, integrity,  virtue, not by the behaviour of others.  You defend and fight for your character not in some sort of twisted tug of war with an attacker, but by continuing in your daily life to make choices that are virtuous, honorable, etc. 

Someone who makes the choice to attack you has no effect on whether you are virtuous anymore than someone rear ending your car while you are at a stop sign means you are a bad driver. You made no choice that was telling people you wanted to get crashed into. 
 

Quote

Virtue for example is something I believe is worth fighting for.  

I agree virtue is worth fighting for, but it is not a physical state that can be taken by another through rape or anything else. Virtue is about what “You” do, not what someone else does to “You”.  Virtue is fought for by continuing to be virtuous, by doing good to the best of your ability. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

But the definition of "struggle" doesn't always mean fighting back.  A woman who freezes during a rape and doesn't fight back "struggles" just as much as a woman who fights back.  Neither are "helping" the abuser.  Neither are voluntary.  Both struggled in their own way.  And both are under no condemnation.

A woman who acts in any way to survive a rape so she can continue to live, to care for those she loves, to do good in the world is being virtuous.  That may mean physically fighting her attacker, it may mean freezing because her instinct takes over to protect her, or it may mean she chooses to pretend she is consenting when she is not.  Or it may mean something else. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You're getting insulting.

He got there long ago. This is getting disgusting. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

A would-be rapist can easily become an accepted sex partner simply by the would-be victim becoming a willing participant in the would-be sex encounter.  A rapist isn't considered a rapist if the sex partner consents to the sex encounter.

None of the labels can be applied correctly until whatever will happen happens and is over and done with.

If someone catches a cold and decides to deal with it by going to bed and pampering themselves for a few days, are they consenting to the cold in your view or are they choosing to protect their body by giving it the chance to heal itself?

Resisting rape is not done just in that moment of physical attack through physical resistance, mental and emotional resistance takes place by the victim choosing not to allow the rapist to dominate their life, to take away their choices in the days and years after the rape…and how they choose to protect themselves, to live to fight another day, to achieve this may occur in many ways.  A decision to pretend to act as if one accepts the rape as sex is not actually accepting the domination of the rapist nor does it change the physical act of rape into consensual sex; it is simply a different method of fighting the rapist, of refusing to give up. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Calm

[Fether]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think the problem many are having is trying to figure out what is opinion and what is doctrine.  That is probably true with those who wrote scripture as well.  Certainly Paul put in a lot of opinion in his writings such as prohibiting wearing gold, make up, women not praying in church etc.  It is not like those apostles and prophets preface their remarks with "this is my opinion" or "This comes from God."  There has been a LOT of beliefs that were suppose to be from God that later turned out to be just opinion.  

Of course one is suppose to use the Spirit to figure that out.  But within the Church the Spirit seems to tell one person one thing and another person another.  Peopleseem to be tossed to and fro as to what is doctrine and what is opinion.

I agree. I have chosen for myself what constitutes reliable or sources. For me, if it has the church’s stamp, I follow it. Everything  else I take as long as it doesn’t contradict what the church stamped literature says.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Just an FYI….We need to be careful not assume words translated into “Atonement” always mean “at one” or to unite or we may be importing Christian beliefs into Judaism that aren’t actually there. 
 

https://youtu.be/-hVIzks_e8I

 

True, in fact we need to be careful with the Christian sources that use it too. It is a word that was created to try to approach the same meaning held by writers in the Old and New Testament. It is not a perfect fit for either but it is not bad either.