This is the mormony term for rape now, is it? I think if we consider what this phrase actually means. I think it is more disturbing than just being tone-deaf.
The fact that rape is typically a violent attack on someone is taken out of the picture. Its not sexual violence, its more like tricking someone into doing something bad. I think this explains why church officials are always dragging rape victims before judgement. They want to know how much they actually "knew" before engaging in sexy-fun-time.
Would they view other crimes in same way? ( Hell what am I saying, they don't even usually acknowledge it as a crime!) Would they call being mugged "non-consensual charitable giving", or being jumped on the street as "non-consensual combat-sport participation", kidnapping can be "non-consensual vacations".
The fact that they can't call a spade a spade makes them look horrible. Rape is rape, rape victims are victims not accomplices.
For females who are victims of rape, rape can transmit diseases (some life-threatening), can impregnate, and also (often depending on the age of the victim) can inflict real, and often lasting, bodily damage.
For males who are the victims of rape, rape can transmit diseases (some life-threatening), and also (often depending on the age of the victim) can inflict real anatomical damage...
...not to mention the psychological and emotional damage which can happen to either gender as a result of this violent (or potentially violent) act.
I fail to see how rape can be considered BY ANYONE to be "sexual immorality."
Thank you, Kilgravmaga! As a rape-victim, I thank you!
I'm glad someone else is outraged by this! I hate the way Mormons twist words around to re-define the subject.
It is RAPE. (Statutory rape, for example, JS's rape of Helen Marr Kimball, is RAPE.)
>>>"Would they call being mugged "non-consensual charitable giving", or being jumped on the street as "non-consensual combat-sport participation", kidnapping can be "non-consensual vacations".<<<
Mormonism is famous for using semantics to turn vice into virtue.
Joseph S. started it by using the terms "Spiritual/eternal marriage" for bigamy and rape. How can it be infidelity or adultery if you rename it "spiritual and eternal"?
"It is commendable that non-consensual immorality has been exposed and denounced. Such non-consensual immorality is against the laws of God and of society. Those who understand God's plan should also oppose consensual immorality which is also a sin." Quentin Cook https://youtu.be/ENDfYD-4giE?t=7h2m3s
“It is commendable that non-consensual immorality has been exposed and denounced.”
Society has always denounced rape, nothing commendable about acknowledging that the church denounces it too.
This second part is what troubles me the most.
"Those who understand God's plan should also oppose consensual immorality which is also a sin."
He is preaching that two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of a home is somehow comparable to the crime of rape.
Granted, the statement in question can be understood to refer to the rapist. But then the failure to even acknowledge the tragedy to the victim, while coupling it in with consensual sex in society only makes things worse. I guess it hit a trigger in me, having been taught SWK's nonsense that it is better for a victim to die rather than be raped.
Cook, that so-called apostle of Jesus Christ, could have at least mentioned something about the victim being blameless to ensure that his words wouldn't be misunderstood or taken out of context. I'm past giving any of those LDS leaders the benefit of the doubt anymore. He should have chosen his words more carefully if he didn't want to be criticized for sounding like an ass.
Agreed, he sounds like a complete asshat. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s at all possible he meant to say something else. All your points are well taken.
I immediately thought Cook was referring to the perpetrator and NOT the victim. Yes, it is a very strange, "lawyerly" way of saying rape or sexual assault, though.
kilgravmaga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would they call being > mugged "non-consensual charitable giving", or > being jumped on the street as "non-consensual > combat-sport participation", kidnapping can be > "non-consensual vacations".
Just spewed cawfee all over my monitor...Thanks, kilgravmaga!!! That was hilarious!!
I think we are missing the point of his statement. He is saying, yes rape is a sin....but cosensual sex is a sin too. He is digging the knife into all the victims of sexual crimes by saying they are as bad as a rapist when they have sex with a boyfriend or girlfriend. I was taught that unmarried sex is second only to murder in seriousness. What a jerk.
I agree. It was certainly a bad choice of words, but I think the bigger issue is that he is saying consensual sex outside of marriage is a sin equal to sexual assault. And like you said, what a jerk.
Sin can be analogous to crime... For there to be a crime, there must be a victim. There is no victim, by definition (all parties legal age), involving consensual sexual relations. How are the two things remotely comparable??? They aren’t. I remember being taught sex outside marriage was same degree of seriousness as murder.... incredibly unhealthy.
These are the words of "enlightened" men? Just looking at these lifeless, tired old geezers makes me more suspect of those who look up to their righteousness and narrow-mindedness.
I'm in the camp that believes he also blames the victim with that weasel wording.
And if he was making a roundabout reference to Bishop, he conveniently forgets that the young lady was taught that Bishop, as a priesthood holder and head of the MTC, was chosen under the authority of God almighty, not just a creeper.
I think they are trying to reinforce the concept that even if you were sexually abused, assaulted, or raped, you are no longer "chaste", hence, non-consentual immorality.