Sunday afternoon NOM thread

This is for encouragement, ideas, and support for people going through a faith transition no matter where you hope to end up. This is also the place to laugh, cry, and love together.
User avatar
SeeNoEvil
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 10:41 am

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by SeeNoEvil » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:44 pm

MoPag wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:51 pm
AdmiralHoldo wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:51 pm
SEVEN new temples? Yikes!
Wut?
Arriving late to this party.... 7 temples??!! .... this is an April Fools joke right?
"Every event that has taken place in this universe has led you to this moment.
... The real question is, what will you do with this moment?" - Unknown

"Never arrive @ a point where you know everything - Korihor57

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Jeffret » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:46 pm

Dravin wrote:Just gotta say that "non-consensual immorality" is one of the weirder euphemisms I've heard.
That's atrocious. But it fits right in with how many of the church's leaders (men) approach it.

"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:47 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by sparky » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:47 pm

Reuben wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:30 pm
sparky wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 3:06 pm
Dravin wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:39 pm
Just gotta say that "non-consensual immorality" is one of the weirder euphemisms I've heard.
Right?? Really bizarre, I did a double take when he said that. Like you're being coerced into being immoral? There's nothing immoral about being victimized!
I'm pretty sure they mean the rapist is immoral, but yeah... the ambiguity is concerning. I hope this doesn't become the church's code word for rape. We should call it what it is and make it clear that it's an act of violence against a real person, not just something that merely makes the rapist impure.
I agree he doesn't mean that, but precise language is important with these things. Think of a victim hearing this phrase, especially a naive teenager or child who doesn't realize s/he is being abused or harassed. There is so much shame attached to the word "immorality" in the church, some of that shame is bound to bleed over. Horrible euphemism, I've never heard anything like it.

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Jeffret » Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:51 pm


sparky wrote: I agree he doesn't mean that, but precise language is important with these things. Think of a victim hearing this phrase, especially a naive teenager or child who doesn't realize s/he is being abused or harassed. There is so much shame attached to the word "immorality" in the church, some of that shame is bound to bleed over. Horrible euphemism, I've never heard anything like it.
After reading all of the stories Sam Young has collected I'm not sure he didn't mean that.

"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by alas » Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:33 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:51 pm
sparky wrote: I agree he doesn't mean that, but precise language is important with these things. Think of a victim hearing this phrase, especially a naive teenager or child who doesn't realize s/he is being abused or harassed. There is so much shame attached to the word "immorality" in the church, some of that shame is bound to bleed over. Horrible euphemism, I've never heard anything like it.
After reading all of the stories Sam Young has collected I'm not sure he didn't mean that.

"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")
I agree that it is easy to take this as for the victim, non-consensual immorality is just a little less bad than if she consented, and for the rapist, there is no difference between when his victim is non-consensual and when it is just good old everyday immorality.

As a teenager, I knew that I never consented to the abuse, but I for SURE would have taken this as implying my immorality. Because if it is not immorality for the non-consenting person, you don't call it immorality. I would have taken it as "it doesn't matter if there was no consent, it is still immorality.

Non-consensual immorality is an oxymoron. It is ONLY immorality for the consenting. And if done to someone who is not consenting, then it is rape. This is about the worst euphemism for rape ever invented. Why can't they just call it sexual assault? Why come up with something that implies the victim's immorality to avoid the supper scary term sexual assault? Why subtract all the violence out of it? So, not only do they victim blame, they make it nonviolent, or not a huge violation of the trust of a minor child.

"Non-consensual" is such a minimization of what happened to me that this just makes me sick. Even calling it immorality on my father's part is a minimization of just how terrible it is.

They don't know what the hell they are even talking about. The sex was the least of it, the big things are the betrayal of trust and the violence in the threat to destroy my family, and the very real physical violence when I started resisting and telling him no.

Christ Said it were better that a mill stone be put around their neck and them drowned in the deepest sea than to offend one of these little ones. This is NOT garden variety immorality.
Last edited by alas on Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tangent
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:17 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Tangent » Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:32 pm

-1000 to anyone who used the phrase ‘covenant path’ this conference. I’m going to puke if I hear that phrase again. It’s as bad as ‘tender mercies’

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by moksha » Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:43 pm

I was really pleased by Elder Holland's talk. It was refreshing not to see him angry and acrimonious. If it had been buried beneath other stuff, and I am glad he uncovered a more loving side of himself.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by alas » Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:29 am

I was in the other room at our family Easter party while a few were watching conference and I heard the words "non-consensual immorality" and I could not believe I heard this bit of victim blaming.

Now it and diabetic neuropathy have me up at night. Maybe it was a super poor euphemism is a great talk, but I don't have the context of hearing the whole talk.

But it is the same kind of thinking that rape is more about sex than violence and control, and it is the kind of thinking that has a rape victim losing her virtue. I don't think whoever jerk gave this talk makes any distinction between the immorality of the rapist and the victim. It is "better lose your life than your virtue" applied to rape victims. The kind of thinking that a woman is nothing but a pot that men plant seed in and a man wants to know if weed seed has ever been planted in his pot.

There are so many messages out there that rape and sexual abuse victims are chewed gum to understand this "non-consensual immorality" as only applying to the rapist. No, I really think jerkface who gave this talk meant it as the victim of non-consensual immorality is only a little less guilty as someone who consented to the immorality.

And where does this leave spousal rape. In his book, spousal rape is not immoral because they are married. So there can be no such thing as spousal rape----just very very violent foreplay. Foreplay that puts the spouse in the hospital, yeah that is all it is, nothing immoral about it.

Would he consider it non-consensual immorality if a man was taken hostage at gun point in a bank robbery, and then at gun point forced to drive the get away car? Non-consensual bank robbery. He would never call that non-consensual bank robbery, but he would feel bad for the terrified man. But he has no such compassion for rape victims because he sees rape as sex and not violence and control.

Can I pound jerkface's face into cement, and we'll call it a non-consensual face lift.

-4,000 points for jerkface and victim blaming, or at least for a piss poor understanding of rape.



On a brighter note, in a few months, I will acquire a great grandchild....well, a step great grandchild. A non-spawn great grandchild. She was at our family Easter party stuffing candy into her mouth as fast as she could stuff, not that she was able to chew in that condition. So cute.

User avatar
MoPag
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:05 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by MoPag » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:46 am

alas wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:29 am

Can I pound jerkface's face into cement, and we'll call it a non-consensual face lift.

-4,000 points for jerkface and victim blaming, or at least for a piss poor understanding of rape.
It was Cook. His whole talk was just a horrible mess. But I guess it would be hard to write a talk with his head shoved so far up Nelson's a$$.

alas wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:29 am
On a brighter note, in a few months, I will acquire a great grandchild....well, a step great grandchild. A non-spawn great grandchild. She was at our family Easter party stuffing candy into her mouth as fast as she could stuff, not that she was able to chew in that condition. So cute.
Congrats!! That is wonderful news!!
...walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound

User avatar
MoPag
Posts: 3741
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 2:05 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by MoPag » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:58 am

Ending stats for Sunday afternoon:

Gong +20
Soares -5
Nelson (ht/vt announcement) -105
Holland +5
Bingham +15
DFU +30
Causse +15
Cook -4,015
Nelson (temple announcements) +5

Feel free to continue to give or take away points. I will post totals in a few days! :D
...walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Give It Time » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:07 pm

alas wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:29 am
I was in the other room at our family Easter party while a few were watching conference and I heard the words "non-consensual immorality" and I could not believe I heard this bit of victim blaming.

Now it and diabetic neuropathy have me up at night. Maybe it was a super poor euphemism is a great talk, but I don't have the context of hearing the whole talk.

But it is the same kind of thinking that rape is more about sex than violence and control, and it is the kind of thinking that has a rape victim losing her virtue. I don't think whoever jerk gave this talk makes any distinction between the immorality of the rapist and the victim. It is "better lose your life than your virtue" applied to rape victims. The kind of thinking that a woman is nothing but a pot that men plant seed in and a man wants to know if weed seed has ever been planted in his pot.

There are so many messages out there that rape and sexual abuse victims are chewed gum to understand this "non-consensual immorality" as only applying to the rapist. No, I really think jerkface who gave this talk meant it as the victim of non-consensual immorality is only a little less guilty as someone who consented to the immorality.

And where does this leave spousal rape. In his book, spousal rape is not immoral because they are married. So there can be no such thing as spousal rape----just very very violent foreplay. Foreplay that puts the spouse in the hospital, yeah that is all it is, nothing immoral about it.

Would he consider it non-consensual immorality if a man was taken hostage at gun point in a bank robbery, and then at gun point forced to drive the get away car? Non-consensual bank robbery. He would never call that non-consensual bank robbery, but he would feel bad for the terrified man. But he has no such compassion for rape victims because he sees rape as sex and not violence and control.

Can I pound jerkface's face into cement, and we'll call it a non-consensual face lift.

-4,000 points for jerkface and victim blaming, or at least for a piss poor understanding of rape.



On a brighter note, in a few months, I will acquire a great grandchild....well, a step great grandchild. A non-spawn great grandchild. She was at our family Easter party stuffing candy into her mouth as fast as she could stuff, not that she was able to chew in that condition. So cute.
I think the Church just set itself back a few hundred years with this statement. I wonder if they'll redact it.

Let's see. How is non-consensual immorality immoral?

Rapist-apparently didn't consent to raping and participated in the non-consensual immorality.
Victim-didn't consent to the raping and participated in the non-consensual immorality.

Know what this double speak looks like--other than placing non-consensual immorality firmly in the camp with consensual immorality, which he later does? It implies that this was a case where the rapist was led on by the victim and the "rapist" gets blamed because the victim is baiting and switching tease. That is the only way a rapist could not consent to raping--and that seldom happens.

I agree, this also makes it so there is no such thing as marital rape. He is strongly implying that all sex within the bonds of matrimony is moral--whether consensual or not.

They just do not get it. Do not get it. Do not get it. Sad thing is, this drivel will be used by bishops in handling rape cases and marital sexual abuse cases.

So...in light of some new thought processes I utilize...

Elder Cook, as a spokesperson for this church, just said something very damning about rape victims and I am (doing what about it)?

What does my 90 year-old self have to say about this?

Resign?

Tell them why?

Possibly...

Serious step.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

User avatar
Jeffret
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Jeffret » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:43 pm

Give It Time wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:07 pm
I think the Church just set itself back a few hundred years with this statement. I wonder if they'll redact it.
From my perspective, whatever gains they can be praised for in calling leaders somewhat outside their stereotype have been erased by this phrase. And it wholly demonstrates why their original gains were so scant.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")

User avatar
RubinHighlander
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:20 am
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by RubinHighlander » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:45 pm

Tangent wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:32 pm
-1000 to anyone who used the phrase ‘covenant path’ this conference. I’m going to puke if I hear that phrase again. It’s as bad as ‘tender mercies’
And throw Ponderize on that pile of $hit!
“Sir,' I said to the universe, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the universe, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.”
--Douglas Adams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzmYP3PbfXE

User avatar
Give It Time
Posts: 1244
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Sunday afternoon NOM thread

Post by Give It Time » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:50 pm

Jeffret wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:43 pm
Give It Time wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:07 pm
I think the Church just set itself back a few hundred years with this statement. I wonder if they'll redact it.
From my perspective, whatever gains they can be praised for in calling leaders somewhat outside their stereotype have been erased by this phrase. And it wholly demonstrates why their original gains were so scant.

One step forward, two steps back. That's the saying, anyway. Even if it's more steps back than that.
At 70 years-old, my older self would tell my younger self to use the words, "f*ck off" much more frequently. --Helen Mirren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 57 guests