Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
The Real Reason I Left
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Heaven knows I don't want to get into another dictionary definition argument, but "virtue" in this sense refers to (I'll quote Webster's) "chastity especially in a woman." If it were the broader definition, I would agree with you. But the words "chastity" and "virtue" are both used (interchangeably, it appears) by SWK to describe things that can be taken or stolen. I could not disagree more.
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Runtu wrote:wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Heaven knows I don't want to get into another dictionary definition argument, but "virtue" in this sense refers to (I'll quote Webster's) "chastity especially in a woman." If it were the broader definition, I would agree with you. But the words "chastity" and "virtue" are both used (interchangeably, it appears) by SWK to describe things that can be taken or stolen. I could not disagree more.
To me, the fact that Pres. Kimball believed virtue (and perhaps even chastity) can be taken away, suggest to me that he understood those terms somewhat differently than you. I believe my comments reflect the essence of the thought he was trying to convey, and I am not prepared to make him an offender for a word. I will leave that to others if they wish.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
-
_Blixa
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
I wasn’t sure if I’d ever read any of Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, so I just did, so I could see the discussion of rape in context. I thought others here might want to see my investigations:
The rape business comes about midway through the book, after a long section enumerating a “scriptural list of sins.” Interestingly, I found that “lack of understanding,” “ignorance,” “insatiable appetite,” “inventing evil things,” and “incontinence” are on the list. Also, “self-will.” But none of them come close to the seriousness of sexual sins apparently, about which there are two whole chapters and over sixteen separate sub-titled discussions. Sexual sin is introduced in Chapter Five: "The Sin Next to Murder:"
“There are sins which are so serious that we know of no forgiveness for them. These we will discuss in greater detail in a later chapter. There are also sins which approach the unforgivable ones in seriousness but seem to come in the category of the forgivable. These are the diabolical crimes of sexual impurity. In varied form they run from aberrations involving self-abuse, sex stimulation, and self-pollution..”
In this chapter, under the repetitive subhead, “Next to Murder in Seriousness,” Kimball quotes David O. McKay,
“... Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.” [emphasis mine]
In the next section, titled, “Steps to Fornication,” we once again hear that death is preferable to loss of “virtue:”
“Our young people should know that their partners in sin will not love or respect them if they have freedom in fondling their bodies. Such a practice destroys respect, not only for the other person but for self. It destroys the ultimate respect for virtue. And it ignores the oft-repeated prophetic warning that one should give his or her life rather than to yield to loss of virtue.” [emphasis mine]
In a further subsection titled, “The Curse of Adultery,” Kimball tells the New Testament story of the woman found in sin and notes the Jesus did not forgive her:
“Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one in sin.”
The discussion of rape comes in Chapter 13, “Lifting Burdens Through Confession” under the subsection “Restitution for Loss of Chastity:”
“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a 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.” [emphasis mine]
So here we have the whole thing: sexual sin is “next to murder” in heinousness and rape in included in the section about repenting for one’s loss of chastity. However, we’ve previously been told twice that its better to die than lose one’s virtue. Also we’re told that a woman apparently can “cooperate” and “contribute” to her own rape, however if she hasn’t, “she is in a more favorable position.” Still screwed, as it were, but more favorably. Above all she should struggle, even though in the real world the result of that can be death.
I can’t leave this miserable tome without a word about the “ignorance” and “lack of understanding” (scriptural sins, remember) that extends to matters of history: in this case the history of, not surprisingly, mesoamerica and Roman Italy.
On a trip, as Kimball puts it, “down in Maya land,” he is struck by the contrast between the Mayan ruins of Uxmal and the dwellings of contemporary Mexicans. “Why, why aren't these Mayan Indians still building temples and other magnificent structures?” Well for one thing, they aren’t exactly “Mayan Indians,” but let’s read further, “Again, I wondered: Why do they grovel in the earth today when in the long-ago-past they had their observatories and looked into the heavens? The answer comes ringing back with great force: Because they forgot the purpose of life! They forgot the thing for which they had come to earth and they dwelt in the earth and lived an earthy life. And the time came when God could not tolerate it longer and they were permitted to be decimated and destroyed.”
Yes, decimated and destroyed and christianized by the Spanish.
Over in old Roman land, Kimball opines about the destruction of Pompeii:
“...we remembered that back in A.D. 79 the Lord permitted it to "blow its top" literally and figuratively.”
There follows the usual condemnation of Roman living with references to Sodom and Gomorrah and a very, very detailed cateloge of the painful and terrible ways in which people lost their lives in the aftermath of the volcano’s eruption. Kimball notes that “brothels” and “bathhouses” were preserved along with their ribald murals: “Then I came to realize why Pompeii was destroyed. There came a time when it just had to be destroyed.”
I think “lack of mercifulness” was also on the previous list of sins where I found “ignorance” earlier in his book. I would recommend that anyone interested in Pompeii should read Pliny the Younger’s two letters to Tacitus about his uncle, Pliny the Elder’s heroic death while attempting a scientific investigation turned rescure mission. In it one will read an example of true human decency, a quality I found lacking in Kimball’s book.
Oh, by the way, I know there are several landscape and garden enthusiasts on the board; I hope you are remaining fully clothed during these activities:
“But is this ugly displaying of one's private body to others so far removed from those instances of men who do their yard work wearing only pants and shoes?”
The rape business comes about midway through the book, after a long section enumerating a “scriptural list of sins.” Interestingly, I found that “lack of understanding,” “ignorance,” “insatiable appetite,” “inventing evil things,” and “incontinence” are on the list. Also, “self-will.” But none of them come close to the seriousness of sexual sins apparently, about which there are two whole chapters and over sixteen separate sub-titled discussions. Sexual sin is introduced in Chapter Five: "The Sin Next to Murder:"
“There are sins which are so serious that we know of no forgiveness for them. These we will discuss in greater detail in a later chapter. There are also sins which approach the unforgivable ones in seriousness but seem to come in the category of the forgivable. These are the diabolical crimes of sexual impurity. In varied form they run from aberrations involving self-abuse, sex stimulation, and self-pollution..”
In this chapter, under the repetitive subhead, “Next to Murder in Seriousness,” Kimball quotes David O. McKay,
“... Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.” [emphasis mine]
In the next section, titled, “Steps to Fornication,” we once again hear that death is preferable to loss of “virtue:”
“Our young people should know that their partners in sin will not love or respect them if they have freedom in fondling their bodies. Such a practice destroys respect, not only for the other person but for self. It destroys the ultimate respect for virtue. And it ignores the oft-repeated prophetic warning that one should give his or her life rather than to yield to loss of virtue.” [emphasis mine]
In a further subsection titled, “The Curse of Adultery,” Kimball tells the New Testament story of the woman found in sin and notes the Jesus did not forgive her:
“Note that the Lord did not forgive the woman of her serious sin. He commanded quietly, but forcefully. "Go, and sin no more." Even Christ cannot forgive one in sin.”
The discussion of rape comes in Chapter 13, “Lifting Burdens Through Confession” under the subsection “Restitution for Loss of Chastity:”
“Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a 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.” [emphasis mine]
So here we have the whole thing: sexual sin is “next to murder” in heinousness and rape in included in the section about repenting for one’s loss of chastity. However, we’ve previously been told twice that its better to die than lose one’s virtue. Also we’re told that a woman apparently can “cooperate” and “contribute” to her own rape, however if she hasn’t, “she is in a more favorable position.” Still screwed, as it were, but more favorably. Above all she should struggle, even though in the real world the result of that can be death.
I can’t leave this miserable tome without a word about the “ignorance” and “lack of understanding” (scriptural sins, remember) that extends to matters of history: in this case the history of, not surprisingly, mesoamerica and Roman Italy.
On a trip, as Kimball puts it, “down in Maya land,” he is struck by the contrast between the Mayan ruins of Uxmal and the dwellings of contemporary Mexicans. “Why, why aren't these Mayan Indians still building temples and other magnificent structures?” Well for one thing, they aren’t exactly “Mayan Indians,” but let’s read further, “Again, I wondered: Why do they grovel in the earth today when in the long-ago-past they had their observatories and looked into the heavens? The answer comes ringing back with great force: Because they forgot the purpose of life! They forgot the thing for which they had come to earth and they dwelt in the earth and lived an earthy life. And the time came when God could not tolerate it longer and they were permitted to be decimated and destroyed.”
Yes, decimated and destroyed and christianized by the Spanish.
Over in old Roman land, Kimball opines about the destruction of Pompeii:
“...we remembered that back in A.D. 79 the Lord permitted it to "blow its top" literally and figuratively.”
There follows the usual condemnation of Roman living with references to Sodom and Gomorrah and a very, very detailed cateloge of the painful and terrible ways in which people lost their lives in the aftermath of the volcano’s eruption. Kimball notes that “brothels” and “bathhouses” were preserved along with their ribald murals: “Then I came to realize why Pompeii was destroyed. There came a time when it just had to be destroyed.”
I think “lack of mercifulness” was also on the previous list of sins where I found “ignorance” earlier in his book. I would recommend that anyone interested in Pompeii should read Pliny the Younger’s two letters to Tacitus about his uncle, Pliny the Elder’s heroic death while attempting a scientific investigation turned rescure mission. In it one will read an example of true human decency, a quality I found lacking in Kimball’s book.
Oh, by the way, I know there are several landscape and garden enthusiasts on the board; I hope you are remaining fully clothed during these activities:
“But is this ugly displaying of one's private body to others so far removed from those instances of men who do their yard work wearing only pants and shoes?”
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
wenglund wrote:To me, the fact that Pres. Kimball believed virtue (and perhaps even chastity) can be taken away, suggest to me that he understood those terms somewhat differently than you. I believe my comments reflect the essence of the thought he was trying to convey, and I am not prepared to make him an offender for a word. I will leave that to others if they wish.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I'm not making him an offender for a word. If he indeed held the broad belief you do, it would have been all right with me. Unfortunately, as we have seen, the teaching was interpreted (correctly, in my view) with the narrower definition in mind.
I don't think President Kimball was a bad man, but I do think this was a bad teaching and am glad it has fallen out of favor.
-
_Analytics
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm
wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Perhaps it's just my Quaker heritage speaking, but may I point out that literally fighting to the death is inherently dangerous and often deadly. If your highest values include safety and life, fighting to the death for anything is a self-destructive course of action that conflicts with those very values. I'm certainly not going to judge a woman for fighting to the death (or for not fighting to the death). But if she does engage in a death fight, I'd bet she's fighting for things like pride, honor, and vengence more than life and safety.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
-Yuval Noah Harari
-Yuval Noah Harari
-
_Blixa
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
The Nehor wrote:In many ways it was the societal norm.
No it wasn't. By that point in american history, a great deal of education about rape had been accomplished (largely as a consequence of feminism). I didn't view things this way, neither did my parents or grandparents. Or anyone else I respected.
Furthermore, shouldn't we expect the "inspired" and "anointed" "discerning" "judges in Israel" to have a better understanding of serious and important issues than the average man in the street? This is the same excuse that's offered for denying black men the priesthood and I'm sorry but that doesn't historically wash, either.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Analytics wrote:wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Perhaps it's just my Quaker heritage speaking, but may I point out that literally fighting to the death is inherently dangerous and often deadly. If your highest values include safety and life, fighting to the death for anything is a self-destructive course of action that conflicts with those very values.
At times, it is an unavoidable paradox. The values of safety and life may be in jeopardy either way. Some of us think it at least worth the short-term honorable sacrifice of those values in terms of ourselves so as to better assure the long-term preservation of those values on behalf of others if not also for ourselves.
I'm certainly not going to judge a woman for fighting to the death (or for not fighting to the death). But if she does engage in a death fight, I'd bet she's fighting for things like pride, honor, and vengence more than life and safety.
I am disinclined to judge either way as well, but I am not prepared to restrict what she may or may not be fitting for to the few things you mentioned.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
-
_Mr. Coffee
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The first thing I like to ask when someone puts that question forth is "Really? So which branch of the Armed Forces did you serve in?"
If they answer that the never have, I try my best to repress the urge to beat them into a red smear on the deck. Talking about fighting to the death for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the province of jingoists and cowards. Actions speak far louder than words do. If you're serious about it then I trust you'll be talking to an Armed Forces recruiter soon. If not, then kindly shut up.
I mean seriously, unless you have served, either in the Armed Forces or Uniformed Public Safety (LEO, Fire/Rescue, etc.) when have you ever actually put your ass on the line in defense of anything other then yourself?
My two cents on that subject... Anyways...
wenglund wrote:Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue
No, she'd be fighting in order to survive the encounter. High minded BS about "virtue" is all well and good, but death is irrevocable. "Virtue" isn't a physical condition, in order to loose it you have to commit to an action that would remove it. Having your body taken by someone against your will isn't loosing your "virtue", it's assault. You act as if "virtue" is something physical and not an intangible ideal.
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Blixa wrote:The Nehor wrote:In many ways it was the societal norm.
No it wasn't. By that point in american history, a great deal of education about rape had been accomplished (largely as a consequence of feminism). I didn't view things this way, neither did my parents or grandparents. Or anyone else I respected.
Furthermore, shouldn't we expect the "inspired" and "anointed" "discerning" "judges in Israel" to have a better understanding of serious and important issues than the average man in the street? This is the same excuse that's offered for denying black men the priesthood and I'm sorry but that doesn't historically wash, either.
Evidently, President Kimball placed a much greater importance on virtue and chastity than you and the feminized world you grew up in. That doesn't make his position unreasonable. It just makes it different from your own. I trust that you can handle diversity. ;-)
And, if one is intent on determining which of the diverse levels of importance may be most advantageous for society, one may wish to check the legacy of each in terms of rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and infidelity, etc. I don't know about you, but I am inclined to put my money on Pres. Kimball over the feminist movement--but that may be because the importance I place on virtue and chastity may be more in line with Pres. Kimball.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-