DiscussMormonism.com

Runtu wrote:I am dramatic. Ask Eric.

I don't' know if its a good idea for me to ask Eric anything. But rest assured everyone can be a little dramatic. I get dramatic often.

Here's the quote, if you're interested:

“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”
–Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness.

that's not teaching it'd be better to be dead then to lose your viriginity before marriage. he says you'd be better off dead then to lose it without a struggle. You guys sure know how to make the mountains out of molehills. I figgered that was the case.

[/quote]

All right, it's not usually my policy to be abusive to people on here, but I have to make an exception in this case.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS TEACHING YOU damned MORON! DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?

Sorry.

stemelbow wrote:

Runtu wrote:Let me get this straight: Kimball tells us that rape victims who don't resist totally are better off dead than losing their "virtue." This is somehow better than saying it's better to be dead than losing your virginity before marriage? Honestly, I don't know what to make of you.

I'm glad you're asking to get it straight. Kimball doesn't say anything about resisting totally, he says without a struggle. of course we each struggle differently. My sis was the r word after she was drugged. In an unconscious state she couldn't struggle much huh? But even she admits she shouldn't have been in the position. Anyway, I'm not arguing whether Kimball's explanation is true or not, at this juncture. Just pointing out that what Beefcalf said was not what Kimball said, like you guys were trying to say--and liz suggested was a quote from kimball. It turns out what Kimball did say was much different then the claim.

I have had some great bishops. I think even the most hardened apostate knows that bishops are usually decent people who even joke on occasion.

Goodie.

Blaming the victim, huh?

You damned moron.

stemelbow wrote:

Runtu wrote:Given that McKay's quote appears in a chapter of MoF about sexual morality, it's at least clear what Kimball meant when he cited it.

Of course. But even in that context it doesn't say what beefcalf said. I'm not defending these random few LDS quotes per se. I'm just here explaining that what beefcalf said, and which I felt was silly at first, is not what the quotes suggest. McKay's quote suggests that virtue is very important to preserve and people should fight to preserve it, even fight to death. But that does not say its better to die then to lose one's viriginity before marriage. I can see how it can be twisted to suggest as much. I can see how people who are critical of the church would like to summarize it as beefcalf did. Still, it doesn't matter. Its still not the same thing. Its still just a caricature drawn to satisfy the critical side.

Stem....How old are you? 22? 23?

The reason I ask is that I think the reason we are at an impasse is because you are addressing some of us "older folks" who have grown up in a different era of the Church.

The Church has evolved, and I completely agree with you that today's message is different than the message the Church sent 30-35 years ago.

I think, however, that you need to give credence to the fact that you did not attend the Standards Nights, the special youth firesides, etc. which were completely dedicated to subjects such as masturbation, abortion, chastity, sexual sins, etc.

President Kimball was the prophet through my elementary and most of my High School days. I remember his talks well.

Now, please understand that I have a great love and respect for President Kimball. I read his book, "One Long and Silent, Sleepless Night". I still own it. He had a true testimony of Christ.

That being said, having lived through that era, and having gone through puberty and High School during his presidency, I can tell you that as a girl/woman, I had a dire fear of being raped. In YW, we were explicitly taught to "fight to the death" if we were attacked.

Frankly, I had always thought that fighting would be a normal thing to do....until I was sexually assaulted when I was 17....and discovered what it was like to go into shock. Have you ever been in shock, Stem? When you go into shock, you physically can't move....can't speak...even though you want to.

For years, I never told anyone what happened because I didn't want to be thought of as "damaged goods".

I understand what you are saying about the Church not currently preaching a lot of these things...but please do not disrespect those of us who have lived through some of these times.

I think that we can learn from each other.

Geeze. You're being trolled. You might also be shocked to find out that stem does not, in fact, love you tons.

keithb wrote:All right, it's not usually my policy to be abusive to people on here, but I have to make an exception in this case.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS TEACHING YOU f*****g MORON! DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO READ?

Sorry.

Don't apologize for your hostility and either lack of desire to express yourself properly or your inability to do so.

Of course its not exactly what it is teaching. But, rest assured, I hear the point in the quote, and disagree with you. I've explained my reasons in this thread. If you care to engage and discuss it. I'm game. Or you can get all hostile or whatever you wish to call it.

keithb wrote:Blaming the victim, huh?

You f*****g moron.

No...not at all. You have misunderstood me completely.

liz3564 wrote:The reason I ask is that I think the reason we are at an impasse is because you are addressing some of us "older folks" who have grown up in a different era of the Church.

I get that in some cases. I'm 34.

The Church has evolved, and I completely agree with you that today's message is different than the message the Church sent 30-35 years ago.

Sadly for you, Liz, I simply haven't even addressed what the Church's message has been now or ever in this thread. Perhaps you are mis-reading me, with your wrinkly eyes?

I think, however, that you need to give credence to the fact that you did not attend the Standards Nights, the special youth firesides, etc. which were completely dedicated to subjects such as masturbation, abortion, chastity, sexual sins, etc.

I am aware. Don't worry.

President Kimball was the prophet through my elementary and most of my High School days. I remember his talks well.

Now, please understand that I have a great love and respect for President Kimball. I read his book, "One Long and Silent, Sleepless Night". I still own it. He had a true testimony of Christ.

That being said, having lived through that era, and having gone through puberty and High School during his presidency, I can tell you that as a girl/woman, I had a dire fear of being raped. In YW, we were explicitly taught to "fight to the death" if we were attacked.

Many women have fears of being raped...and many will fight back. Not too long ago a woman beat up a man who attempted to rape her. Good show lady.

Frankly, I had always thought that fighting would be a normal thing to do....until I was sexually assaulted when I was 17....and discovered what it was like to go into shock. Have you ever been in shock, Stem? When you go into shock, you physically can't move....can't speak...even though you want to.

For years, I never told anyone what happened because I didn't want to be thought of as "damaged goods".

I understand what you are saying about the Church not currently preaching a lot of these things...but please do not disrespect those of us who have lived through some of these times.

I do not disrespect your experience or you for living at a different era. Thanks for chiming in. But you have missed my point.

I think that we can learn from each other.

That's been my attitude all along here.

EAllusion wrote:Geeze. You're being trolled. You might also be shocked to find out that stem does not, in fact, love you tons.

But I do love you all tons, even when you misunderstand my points, or misunderstand the quotes you use to batter LDS people/positions. Don't worry about that. That's a constant, baby.

stemelbow wrote:
I'm not asking you to believe me for nothing. I've offered my explanations. You've offered your bald assertions, without response to my explanations. Do I care if you accept my explanations? Do I care if you are reasonable or not? No. Conclude whatever you like. But that really is not germane to the whole argument.

The text itself clearly and plainly agrees with me. The unvarnished text says that death is preferable even to involuntary loss of virginity, let alone voluntary.

Now if you have some sort of BoA-like cipher theory that explains why the text means something other than it says, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.