Relationship with Heavenly Parents

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I can't think of any reason why you would be opposed to establishing the truth about this.

Perhaps she is opposed to getting badgered by a man who refuses to take a polite hint.

[MacGyver]

21 minutes ago, Chum said:

Perhaps she is opposed to getting badgered by a man who refuses to take a polite hint.

Badgered?

Bluebell accused Moses of saying that God commanded that a raped women should be put to death because he (Moses) was sexist. Yet, the reference she provided to back this accusation up doesn't say that it all. It says the exact opposite. It says that a woman who is raped is innocent and not to be punished. In fact, in the scenario where the betrothed women has sex with man "in the field" and there is no evidence of rape, she is actually given the benefit of the doubt and assumed innocent. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by MacGyver

[MacGyver]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are right in that it is dealing with consensual sex, but it is only assumed consensual sex as judged by whether or not the woman cries for help (and likely has to be heard by a witness and not just say “but I did cry out, only no one heard me” or “he had his hand over my mouth before I knew what he was doing”).  There would be no need to differentiate between field and city and when it matters that a woman cries out if she is being raped.
 

The issue is the assumption that the woman knows she will be heard in the city, so if she chooses not to cry out, it must not be rape…“the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city”.  They did not say “she gets stoned because she consented to lie with the man when he found her”.  They are saying it is consensual “because she cried not”.

So in reality it could very well be rape, but the woman who does not cry out has no legal defense against being stoned.  Her saying “I was forced, I was too scared to cry out” is not a legal defense.  It doesn’t matter if it was consensual or not if she wasn’t heard to cry out by a witness.

In the country where no one may hear whether or not she cries out, a different standard for determining rape must therefore be used. 

Those verses don't say that the only standard of whether or not a woman was raped is if she yells out or not. Two hypothetical scenarios are given to illustrate a point regarding the difference between consensual sex of a betrothed woman and another man and a betrothed women being raped by another man. The first scenario about sex in the city and the woman not yelling out, is portrayed that way in order to set up the contrast of the sex in the field scenario. I believe the message is actually that a woman doesn't need to prove that she wasn't raped. If there is a doubt whether or not she was raped or if it was consensual, then she is presumed innocent. 

Clearly neither God nor Moses commanded that a woman who was legitimately raped should be punished. Instead it is clear that she is a victim of a terrible crime and that the perpetrator should be severely punished for what he did. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Bluebell accused Moses of saying that God commanded that a raped women should be put to death because he (Moses) was sexist. 

Not even close. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74174-relationship-with-heavenly-parents/?do=findComment&comment=1210069251

I suspect Bluebell doesn’t believe either Moses or God as authored that law as should be evident from her posts. 
 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Those verses don't say that the only standard of whether or not a woman was raped is if she yells out or not. Two hypothetical scenarios are given to illustrate a point regarding the difference between consensual sex of a betrothed woman and another man and a betrothed women being raped by another man. The first scenario about sex in the city and the woman not yelling out, is portrayed that way in order to set up the contrast of the sex in the field scenario. I believe the message is actually that a woman doesn't need to prove that she wasn't raped. If there is a doubt whether or not she was raped or if it was consensual, then she is presumed innocent. 

You haven’t studied biblical law at all, have you, outside the scriptures?  I probably should put that nicer. 
Have you ever studied biblical or Jewish law, especially laws and interpretation of laws relating to sex outside of marriage?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[MacGyver]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

You haven’t studied biblical law at all, have you?

I've studied it enough to know that it didn't command that innocent victims be punished, let alone be put to death. 

 

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Badgered?

Bluebell accused Moses of saying that God commanded that a raped women should be put to death because he (Moses) was sexist. Yet, the reference she provided to back this accusation up doesn't say that it all. It says the exact opposite. It says that a woman who is raped is innocent and not to be punished. In fact, in the scenario where the betrothed women has sex with man "in the field" and there is no evidence of rape, she is actually given the benefit of the doubt and assumed innocent. 

You have been hammering points in a manner that suggests a win is more desirable than nurturing the pure love of Christ.

[MacGyver]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

You have been hammering points in a manner that suggests a win is more desirable than nurturing the pure love of Christ.

What is more charitable, falsely accusing the Lord's prophets of being sexist and making up a false commandment that a woman who was raped should be killed, or using the scriptures to show that neither God nor his prophets commanded this and that the commandment actually absolved the raped woman of any wrong doing while dropping the hammer on the rapist?

[MacGyver]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not even close. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74174-relationship-with-heavenly-parents/?do=findComment&comment=1210069251

I suspect Bluebell doesn’t believe either Moses or God as authored that law as should be evident from her posts. 
 

I think it's actually pretty clear that @bluebellwas accusing Moses of making up a false commandment declaring that a raped woman should be put to death because he was sexist, when she said:

"I do not believe that it was God who said that if a woman is raped in town then she should be stoned, because no woman can possibly be raped in town without someone coming to her defense therefore it had to have been consensual, for example.  The bible says that it was God who said it because it's part of the Law of Moses, but I don't believe that God agrees with killing women who have been raped; I believe that is the product of sexist men who are claiming to speak for God but who are fallible and flawed."

Edited December 22, 2021 by MacGyver

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

What is more charitable, falsely accusing the Lord's prophets of being sexist and making up a false commandment that a woman who was raped should be killed, or using the scriptures to show that neither God nor his prophets commanded this and that the commandment actually absolved the raped woman of any wrong doing while dropping the hammer on the rapist?

Not bludgeoning people is the most charitable of all.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I've studied it enough to know that it didn't command that innocent victims be punished, let alone be put to death. 

 

Of course not. But how they were determined to be innocent or guilty might not have much to do with whether or not they were really guilty. Because determining it by whether or not a woman cries out ignores the fact that many women physically freeze when threatened. 
 

And no, I don’t believe that either prophets or God instructed that part of the Law to be included, so please don’t accuse me of that again. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

What is more charitable, falsely accusing the Lord's prophets of being sexist and making up a false commandment that a woman who was raped should be killed, or using the scriptures to show that neither God nor his prophets commanded this and that the commandment actually absolved the raped woman of any wrong doing while dropping the hammer on the rapist?

You are misrepresenting what bluebell and I have said.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I think it's actually pretty clear that @bluebellwas accusing Moses of making up a false commandment declaring that a raped woman should be put to death because he was sexist, when she said:

"I do not believe that it was God who said that if a woman is raped in town then she should be stoned, because no woman can possibly be raped in town without someone coming to her defense therefore it had to have been consensual, for example.  The bible says that it was God who said it because it's part of the Law of Moses, but I don't believe that God agrees with killing women who have been raped; I believe that is the product of sexist men who are claiming to speak for God but who are fallible and flawed."

That is only if she believes Moses is the author of that section of the Bible and all that is labeled the “Law of Moses”.  I am guessing  those verses  fall under the label “not translated correctly” for her.

Plain and precious teachings were removed and weak and wrong philosophies of men etc were added. That is LDS doctrine, is it not?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[MacGyver]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

If course not. But how they were determined to be innocent or guilty might not have much to do with whether or not they were really guilty. Because determining it by whether or not a woman cries out ignores the fact that many women physically freeze when threatened. 

Again, I don't believe that whether or not a betrothed woman was heard crying out for help while having sex was the actual criteria for determining whether or not she was raped. I believe that two hypothetical scenarios were given to illustrate the point that a betrothed woman who had sex with another man should only be put to death if it was certain that it was consensual and not rape. If it couldn't be determined, then she was to be presumed to be an innocent victim. 

[MacGyver]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are misrepresenting what bluebell and I have said.

I was not my intent to misrepresent what either of you said. Can you please clarify what you are saying then?

[Calm]

MacGyver, do you believe God is okay with stoning someone who has had sex outside of marriage?

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

Again, I don't believe that whether or not a betrothed woman was heard crying out for help while having sex was the actual criteria for determining whether or not she was raped

Then why is it mentioned?

Why not just say one chose to have sex and the other was raped?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I was not my intent to misrepresent what either of you said. Can you please clarify what you are saying then?

I believe that nonprophets have included/added laws that were created by men to revealed and inspired laws and these were codified as part of the Torah. 
 

There is a reason why Deuteronomy 22:24 is completely ignored on church writings. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Calm

[MacGyver]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

And no, I don’t believe that either prophets or God instructed that part of the Law to be included, so please don’t accuse me of that again. 

I wasn't accusing you of claiming that Moses made up a fake commandment declaring that raped women should be put to death. 

My comments were to Chum about the back and forth between myself and Bluebell and his charge that I was badgering her and being uncharitable for challenging her claim that the prophets in the Bible were sexist and that's why the law of Moses commanded that a raped woman be stoned to death. 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by MacGyver

[MacGyver]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

MacGyver, do you believe God is okay with stoning someone who has had sex outside of marriage?

During Old Testament times, yes.

But I would also like to point out that the two scenarios we have been discussing aren't about ordinary fornication. They are about a betrothed woman who had entered into a legal contract to marry her husband having sex with another man. Which is more similar to adultery than fornication. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by MacGyver

[MacGyver]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why is it mentioned?

Why not just say one chose to have sex and the other was raped?

I believe it was mentioned to provide an example where a betrothed woman clearly had consensual sex with another man and compare that to a scenario were a betrothed woman was clearly raped or could have been raped by another man. The message being to err on the side of presuming innocence on the part of the betrothed woman when it couldn't be determined whether she had consensual sex or was raped. 

Admittedly this example isn't the best by today's standards. 

[MacGyver]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe that nonprophets have included/added laws that were created by men to revealed and inspired laws and these were codified as part of the Torah. 

Thanks for clearing that up. I agree that this is possible.

Maybe @bluebell can clarify her stance as well. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

During Old Testament times, yes.

Why was it okay then and not now?

[MacGyver]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why was it okay then and not now?

Because God said so and he makes the rules. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is only if she believes Moses is the author of that section of the Bible and all that is labeled the “Law of Moses”.  I am guessing  those verses  fall under the label “not translated correctly” for her.

Plain and precious teachings were removed and weak and wrong philosophies of men etc were added. That is LDS doctrine, is it not?

You are right, I do not believe that Moses is the author of those laws anymore than I believe that God is.