Stop treating them like monsters.

[Guest]

I am more to believe this attraction is a by-product of nurture verses nature.

I totally agree, and this whole thread is making me physically ill.

[Vort]

For me, the step from "allowing homosexuals to express their sexual preferences" to "allowing pedophiles to express their sexual preferences" was a fairly absurd argument. The peripheral route to countering that argument is the "you're smearing gays" argument; the central route would use the argument that homosexuals should be free to express their sexual preferences with other consenting adults.

Cool. So for the purposes of sexual consent and age of majority, let's just change the definition of "adult" to "seven years old and up". Then everyone wins!

Or, let's change the age of sexual majority to thirty, or maybe forty. That way, everyone stays away from perverted homosex and perverted pedosex until they are undoubtedly old enough not to be unduly influenced by perverts.

Or, let's recognize that heterosexual relations in marriage build and establish society, and that homosex and pedosex destroy society, and quit playing around with definitional issues to try to draw a non-existent bright line distinction between the preferabilities of various sexual perversions.

[Guest]

But vort, when you start expanding your mind and not keeping yourself closed within the suffocating standards of a completely faithful, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman, things just aren't so black and white. Can't you see?

[Vort]

But vort, when you start expanding your mind and not keeping yourself closed within the suffocating standards of a completely faithful, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman, things just aren't so black and white. Can't you see?

You have identified my problem, which is that I'm intolerant. And tolerant people all rightly hate and vilify the intolerant.

[Guest]

A pox on us all.

[prisonchaplain]

I do not agree that admitting one is tempted--whether by SSA or 'minor-attraction'--is, in and of itself, a sin. The idea that one has given in to the temptation to be tempted is absurd to me. On the other hand, DWELLING on those tempting thoughts is the sin of lust, regardless of who one is thinking about.

The science is non-conclusive, but there seems to enough anecdotal stories like the one in the article for me to believe that some people are born with a predisposition towards certain temptations. Why is this hard to believe. Nature is corrupted by the Fall. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but even though LDS believe Adam and Eve agreed to take the fruit in the prior existance, the account of God cursing nature as a result is something we share. Thorns, weeds, sickness, and perhaps immoral attractions--all a result of nature that is corrupted.

And, to repeat what has been said many many times--none of this exonerates one who eithers lusts after such things or commits the immoral acts. Rather, we gain a better understanding, and perhaps can offer a bit more grace and sympathy for those who struggle with these things and desire to overcome them.

[Guest]

I just truly have a hard time swallowing that anyone would be born with a disposition toward sexually abusing children.

[Vort]

I just truly have a hard time swallowing that anyone would be born with a disposition toward sexually abusing children.

Some not particularly well-organized thoughts on this issue:

"Abuse" is in the definition. Some feminists define all heterosexual activity as rape of the woman. Does that mean we should accept it as such? In the same vein, what if we decided that seven-year-old children were perfectly able to decide for themselves whether and when to have sex? Then pedophilia would not qualify as child abuse.

The fact is that sexual mores are culturally based and terms like "abuse" are just definitions. There are in fact some underlying sexual expectations that God has given us, but they are not always what we think they are.

People may likely be born with an inherent predisposition to be sexually attracted to children. If that predisposition leads them to engage in sexual activity with children, and if you define that sexual activity as "abuse", then I think it's perfectly reasonable that people might indeed be born with a predisposition to sexually abuse children.

People are born with a predisposition to engage in all sorts of sexual activity, including no sexual desire at all. Our humanistic culture insists that all sin is a mere cultural artifice, and that whatsoever a man doeth is no crime. We know better, and we attach moral values based on what we have been taught, which (we hope and believe) is itself based on revelation from God.

But, bottom line: If we are supposed to accept the homosexual brother (or sister) and show him love and support while he struggles with his unholy desire, we owe no less to the brother who struggles with pedophilic attraction.

[Windseeker]

I'm sorry but just the thread title "Stop treating them like monsters. " irritates me. It's defining deviancy down. Anyone that is gratified by ripping innocence and purity from children is a Monster regardless of their reasoning or motivations.

[Backroads]

I'm sorry but just the thread title "Stop treating them like monsters. " irritates me. It's defining deviancy down. Anyone that is gratified by ripping innocence and purity from children is a Monster regardless of their reasoning or motivations.

I guess in my mind the title was referring more to those cursed with the desire but haven't acted upon that. I do not for a moment think those people should be treated like those whom act upon the impulse.

[Backroads]

I just truly have a hard time swallowing that anyone would be born with a disposition toward sexually abusing children.

No, but I suppose there could be those who are born with an attraction toward children.

[NeuroTypical]

It's a very simple notion for me. People who have sexually abused children, and might possibly do so again, are monsters. It's not the child's fault they are monsters. It's not my fault they're monsters. It may or may not be their fault they are monsters. Maybe they are monsters through no fault of their own, and lie completely blameless in the eyes of God - it doesn't matter. But they are monsters, and need to be treated as dangerous predators who might harm children. Because the definition of pedophile isn't some guy with a leaning or a tendency, the definition is someone who has sexually abused a child.

Pretending monsters are not monsters, does nobody any good. Failure to call evil evil, is a failure. Children within your stewardship have a claim on your protection, which you have a duty to provide. Do not fail them out of some misplaced desire to help someone.

Some of our brothers and sisters, some of God's children, are monsters. They are inheritors of a divine birthright. They are entitled to basic human rights. They want to love and be loved. They are also monsters. We're commanded to love everybody - even monsters. We're commanded to forgive everybody - even monsters.

I don't get why this is hard.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Guest]

I think that someone can develop an attraction for children because of a trauma, like being sexually abused themselves, or because of an escalating pornography addiction. Maybe, MAYBE someone could be born with a brain defect that would point toward that, but that would be pretty exceptional.

Jesus was very clear on how he felt about offending children. That is the main thing that makes it hard for me to accept that someone would just come into this world hardwired with an attraction for prepubescent kids. Yes, homosexual behavior is a sin. But it requires another willing person to engage in the sin. Merely presenting sexual contact as an option to a child is abusive. It can't even be an issue of consent. I understand that you're saying culture can and does change. . . but to my core I know that theologically it is wrong to violate a child's innocence that way. So to accept that someone would be born with no physiological issues just hardwired with a sexual attraction to children isn't something I see myself doing.

[Guest]

Or, you know, what LM said. He has some hard-earned wisdom in this area and a knack for boiling it down to nuts and bolts.

[prisonchaplain]

It's a very simple notion for me. People who have sexually abused children . . . I don't get why this is hard.

It's hard because the main focus of this string are those people who HAVE NOT sexually abused children, but who do find themselves attracted to minors. We are discussing how they got that way, how much of their attraction is nature vs. nurture, and how we should respond to such people.

The article DOES NOT SEEK TO EXONERATE child molesters. It gives us insight into those who struggle with the temptation. Some see a hidden agenda of desensitizing. Some say that such people are still sinners because they somehow must have chosen this attraction. Others of us are suggesting that those who struggle deserve some level of sympathy and understanding. We also allow that at least some of their attraction may be "nature." I've suggested that this genetic aspect may be a result of nature's corruption at the Fall.

[Vort]

It's a very simple notion for me. People who have sexually abused children, and might possibly do so again, are monsters.

How is this nomenclature useful?

Because the definition of pedophile isn't some guy with a leaning or a tendency, the definition is someone who has sexually abused a child.

Are you sure? The word "pedophile" means only "child-lover". We are now told that "homosexual" does not actually mean someone who engages in sexual contact with his or her own sex, but merely someone who has the inclination to do so. If we make this distinction for those attracted to their same sex, why not with respect to those attracted to juveniles? What else would you have us call those who are sexually attracted to children?

For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster defines "pedophilia" as "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object", and "pedophile" as "one affected with pedophilia". These definitions do not require sexual contact, only preference.

Pretending monsters are not monsters, does nobody any good. Failure to call evil evil, is a failure.

But how can they be evil if, as you admit as a possibility, they are not responsible for their state?

Don't we say that mere homosexual feelings are not in and of themselves sinful, but only acting on those feelings? Then why would the same not apply to pedophilia?

Some of our brothers and sisters, some of God's children, are monsters. They are inheritors of a divine birthright. They are entitled to basic human rights. They want to love and be loved. They are also monsters. We're commanded to love everybody - even monsters. We're commanded to forgive everybody - even monsters.

I don't get why this is hard.

Because the term "monster" is a moral judgment.

[Vort]

Jesus was very clear on how he felt about offending children.

The scriptures often quoted about how God will take vengeance on those who abuse children do not in fact apply specifically to children. The "little ones" spoken of appears to mean the children of the kingdom, and usually refers to adults, not little children.

That is the main thing that makes it hard for me to accept that someone would just come into this world hardwired with an attraction for prepubescent kids.

Not sure why. People come into the world hardwired to kill, to abuse, to have sex with animals, to rape, and so forth. Pedophilia looks to be just another in an endless list of perversions of the flesh.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Vort

[bytor2112]

Call me simple and naive, but, because I believe in a loving God, I find it difficult to accept the idea that people are born as pedophiles or homosexuals.

[Vort]

Call me simple and naive, but, because I believe in a loving God, I find it difficult to accept the idea that people are born as pedophiles or homosexuals.

Others refuse to believe in a loving God altogether because of what they observe in the world around them. When we expect God to conform to our preconceptions, we are bound to be disappointed.

[bytor2112]

Others refuse to believe in a loving God altogether because of what they observe in the world around them. When we expect God to conform to our preconceptions, we are bound to be disappointed.

God either stands revealed or remains forever unknown.

[Vort]

God either stands revealed or remains forever unknown.

So are you suggesting that God has revealed himself to you, and as part of that revelation he has assured you that homosexuality and pedophilia are not among the trials he gives his children?

[NeuroTypical]

How is this nomenclature useful?

It clarifies. Trying to treat something like something it is not, is misguided and wastes energy. Rather call things what they are, and figure out how to treat things like they deserve to be treated.

Are you sure?

...

What else would you have us call those who are sexually attracted to children?

Valid semantic point, I suppose. Ok, pick two terms - one to identify someone fighting the tendency, and another term to identify someone who has lost the fight on at least one occasion. I believe the two kinds of people, while both remaining sons and daughters of God, are a world apart in how they must be reacted to in the eyes of their fellow humans.

But how can they be evil if, as you admit as a possibility, they are not responsible for their state?

They tell me love has sort of a dual nature to it. Both inward feelings and outward actions. We're urged to do the outward actions even when we don't feel the inward feelings, both because we're commanded to, and because it helps us develop the inward feelings. Look at the exact opposite of that, and you understand how I can believe such a thing.

Because the term "monster" is a moral judgment.

Well maybe, maybe not. We love the zoo - especially the dangerous predators. Komodo dragons are my wife's favorite. They bite you and then just slowly stroll around behind you until you collapse from the horrible infections a day later, then they eat you. My daughter likes the big cats - even the lions, the males of which kill one another for their harem, after which they will occasionally murder the children from the desposed king, and either rape, kill, or drive off any females depending on their willingness to submit to the new ruler. Ants take slaves, and treat their slaves badly.

Monsters exist. Animals can't sin, so calling them one isn't a moral judgement. It's the dual nature of evil. Both inward feelings and outward acts.

[Vort]

LM, what does it mean to treat a person like a monster?

[Anddenex]

So are you suggesting that God has revealed himself to you, and as part of that revelation he has assured you that homosexuality and pedophilia are not among the trials he gives his children?

"he gives" or "he allows"? I don't think God gives anyone these trials. Now, I am curious, regarding Elder Packer's words in GA regarding how a loving father would not give this trial to anybody.

Now Packer's words are paraphrased, but he said something to this nature.

[Just_A_Guy]

"he gives" or "he allows"? I don't think God gives anyone these trials. Now, I am curious, regarding Elder Packer's words in GA regarding how a loving father would not give this trial to anybody.

Now Packer's words are paraphrased, but he said something to this nature.

Yes, but in fairness, when the written version of that talk was released the language was somewhat modified.