DiscussMormonism.com

This conversation is reminding me of the "Habits of a Peacemaker" book. I have worked to modulate my statements and interactions, and while I have some success in that (I am hoping my commentary has been less acerbic and pointed than in the past), "Habit Ten" ("Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure") seems to be coming into sharp contrast.

Consequently, I propose that we shut down our interaction. I'll leave the last word to you.

Thanks,

-Smac

I live in Provo, which has a Recreation Center, which has a large hot tub open to anyone over 14 years old. If a group of women are in the tub and two men also get in (it's quite large), then - without more - is that a justification to view those men as "potential rapists"? It seems . . . not.

Of course, "situational awareness" varies by circumstance. The hot tub I'm describing is in full view from all sides. The lifeguard is about 20 feet away. Plenty of people are walking past all the time. What is the likelihood of those men attempting to commit rape in those circumstances?

Fence Sitter wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2026 2:21 pm

I am not a SMAC fan, quite the opposite, but I think his objection in that thread is to the blanket statement that "all men are potential rapist".

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2026 3:26 pm

Well, he sure introduced a vivid example that unintentionally shows why his church is so dangerous. I'm curious why he picked a giant public hot tub for his example. It seems like the idea must have been to take this ambiguous scenario that could be pervy but maybe it isn't, and maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe we shouldn't think it is, and then go the DCP route of showing how it quite possibly isn't. You could make the same argument for nudism, which of course an upstanding member of his church would immediately reject.

Let's explore how his very own example tightens the noose on the church that he and Dan believe is the only true church on earth. There is a large group of women already in the hot tub whose relation to each other is unstated but we might assume a mix of smaller circles of friends. There is a steady stream of passerbys who we assume are independent of everyone in the hot tub. There is a lifeguard present who is a paid objective observer, who is supervising from above. It's revealed that girls 14 and older are allowed in the tub, but not stated that they are there.

Two men then enter the hot tub. You can see how this is built up perfectly. It's a highly visible scene to a diverse group of independent witnesses and perhaps lacking in primary incentive, and so we shouldn't assume the two men entering are there to commit rape, which would nearly be impossible. Other forms of sexual assault would be quite possible, of course, but less likely under those circumstances.

It's fascinating that Smac would use variable independence implicitly as his guard rails. He's assuming the situation is one that could quite easily be taken advantage of by a "rapist" under a different set of circumstances. What if there's just one lone teen there and nobody else around? And then a middle age man gets in? well --- that guy would either be completely clueless or be much higher on the likelihood scale to commit abuse because most normal guys wouldn't want to take any chances of what that looks like.

But -- let's assume his scenario but fill in the blanks a little differently. Suppose everyone there is Mormon and from the same ward, and some of the women are teens. Suppose of the two men getting into the tub, one is a general authority and the other is his brother. Suppose the lifeguard is the son of a fellow GA. Suppose the women want to introduce their kids to the GA and have a typical "star struck" moment among leadership. Now what are the possibilities?

"My brother would never do that!" And then when it turns out he probably did, well, everyone knows their first commitment is to the Church and for the greater good they must maintain their silence.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2026 3:26 pm

Well, he sure introduced a vivid example that unintentionally shows why his church is so dangerous. I'm curious why he picked a giant public hot tub for his example. It seems like the idea must have been to take this ambiguous scenario that could be pervy but maybe it isn't, and maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe we shouldn't think it is, and then go the DCP route of showing how it quite possibly isn't. You could make the same argument for nudism, which of course an upstanding member of his church would immediately reject.

In 2010, Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn confessed to his colleagues that he sat nude in a hot tub with a 15-year-old girl in the 1980s. Following his tearful speech, he received a standing ovation from lawmakers, a move that sparked significant public backlash and led to his resignation days later.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:00 pm

Maybe this is why he used a hot tub example.

In 2010, Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn confessed to his colleagues that he sat nude in a hot tub with a 15-year-old girl in the 1980s. Following his tearful speech, he received a standing ovation from lawmakers, a move that sparked significant public backlash and led to his resignation days later.

Maher (the 15 year old) wrote to LDS Church president Thomas S. Monson asking for the church to seek action against Garn, who served as a bishop and Sunday school teacher at an LDS Church.[16] The LDS Church responded to her letter by saying, "The 2008 letter sent by Ms. Maher to Church headquarters was referred to local ecclesiastical leaders to be addressed. Church disciplinary matters are handled at a local level and not at Church headquarters".