Ensign Article Controversy: "Rape Culture"

[Dravin]

Honestly, "rape culture" strikes me more as one of those progressive terms like "racist" or "bigoted" that really mean "I disagree with you; but rather than engaging your argument I'm just going to try to shame you into silence".

The thing to me is when "rape culture" gets thrown around whenever people make statements concerning our actions and behaviors influencing people. You wanna talk about rape jokes or actual arguments of, "She deserved it/earned it because X" then yes, I can take you seriously when you use that term. You want to argue that those who are victims of rape have psychological issues that will make them prone to misconstruing Elder Callister's comments? I can follow that. That said misconstruction seems to make such comments a part of"rape culture", not so much.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Dravin

[MrShorty]

So, you can't just wear something for you. You have to be cognizant of how other people receive that message and be prepared to handle people's impressions.

But doesn't this principle also apply to speakers and magazine publishers editors? When a sizeable portion of the Ensign's audience is receiving a message other than intended, shouldn't the speakers/editors/publishers at least consider how to present the message differently to correct the wrong impressions some are getting?

[Guest]

But doesn't this principle also apply to speakers and magazine publishers editors? When a sizeable portion of the Ensign's audience is receiving a message other than intended, shouldn't the speakers/editors/publishers at least consider how to present the message differently to correct the wrong impressions some are getting?

No. Because YOU are under the impression that a sizeable portion of the Ensign's audience is receiving the message other than intended. Just because a portion is vocal about it doesn't mean they're sizeable.

Also, just because people misunderstand the message doesn't mean the message needs to be changed. The Godhead is completely misunderstood by the majority of Christians. Doesn't mean the message needs to be changed. My friend wearing a headscarf is completely misunderstood by a lot of people as subservience or female oppression. Doesn't mean she has to stop wearing her headscarf.

Edited February 25, 2014 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps this has to do with trust. There are many groups of people who do not trust LDS leadership. So, when one says, "Dressing modestly is godly and safe," members hear wise counsel. Critics hear judgment (I'm not ungodly), and they hear misplaced blame (victims of abuse do not cause their abuse because they dress attractively).

A wise king once said: If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength!

Those who believe in the king would think that yes, when you face difficulty you must persist and be confident. Critics would say that faltering--or hesitating--or showing caution--is often the wiser course. They would consider the king to be foolish. By the way, the king was Solomon.

Interestingly, King Solomon also said: The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty.

Believers would hear this and say that yes working carefully and hard leads to success, whereas proceeding too quickly and thoughtlessly usually fails. Critics would say greatness never comes from caution--the bold are the ones who create big wins.

Oh...and critics would point out the contradiction in these two proverbs, and accuse Solomon of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Believers, would see the general wisdom in both proverbs. We would say there is a time to persist and a time to weigh choices carefully. We would fill in the blanks, the details, the conditions--and know that the Spirit would help us know when to jump and when to pause and evaluate.

[Guest]

Perhaps this has to do with trust. There are many groups of people who do not trust LDS leadership. So, when one says, "Dressing modestly is godly and safe," members hear wise counsel. Critics hear judgment (I'm not ungodly), and they hear misplaced blame (victims of abuse do not cause their abuse because they dress attractively).

A wise king once said: If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength!

Those who believe in the king would think that yes, when you face difficulty you must persist and be confident. Critics would say that faltering--or hesitating--or showing caution--is often the wiser course. They would consider the king to be foolish. By the way, the king was Solomon.

Interestingly, King Solomon also said: The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty.

Believers would hear this and say that yes working carefully and hard leads to success, whereas proceeding too quickly and thoughtlessly usually fails. Critics would say greatness never comes from caution--the bold are the ones who create big wins.

Oh...and critics would point out the contradiction in these two proverbs, and accuse Solomon of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Believers, would see the general wisdom in both proverbs. We would say there is a time to persist and a time to weigh choices carefully. We would fill in the blanks, the details, the conditions--and know that the Spirit would help us know when to jump and when to pause and evaluate.

Another wise and excellent post, PC!

[Just_A_Guy]

There may be some genuine concern in some quarters about victims of sexual assault; but based on the absolutely hysterical reaction I'm seeing on the bloggernacle generally I suspect that this brouhaha is fundamentally a proxy war--an attempt to pillory Callister for having dared to reaffirm the Law of Chastity generally and its its prohibitions on masturbation, "petting" (though he doesn't use that term), pornography, and gay sex in particular.

[Vort]

There may be some genuine concern in some quarters about victims of sexual assault; but based on the absolutely hysterical reaction I'm seeing on the bloggernacle generally I suspect that this brouhaha is fundamentally a proxy war--an attempt to pillory Callister for having dared to reaffirm the Law of Chastity generally and its its prohibitions on masturbation, "petting" (though he doesn't use that term), pornography, and gay sex in particular.

To take McConkie a bit out of context (but only a bit): "These have or should find their way out of the Church."

[Wingnut]

But this isn't a perfect world, human nature is what it is, and vilifying those who dare to verbalize what we all instinctively know smacks of tilting at windmills.

Can you explain what you mean by "what we all instinctively know," please?

[apexviper]

"Refrain from all...evil speaking of the Lord's anointed."

Does anyone remember this and where it's from? Endowed members should know. Not criticizing our leaders is part of the covenants we make in the temple. The controversy people are having come from their interpretation of the talk. Elder Callister repeatedly illustrated that his talk is not about rape culture. It has nothing to do with rape victims. Rather than people going off of their version of Elder Callister's talk, people need to go from what HE was getting at. This is no different from anti-Mormons who wrongly interpret LDS doctrine and then tell the world "Hey, this is their doctrine" when what they present as "doctrine" is merely their twisted-up version of it.

I'll quote a few friends of mine on this topic who, by the way, are all women and they 100% agree with what Elder Callister said. All of these are either about the topic Elder Callister spoke on or how we should make sure we take the talk as Elder Callister gave it, not as we perceive it.

"I hate when people take things out of context. Read the whole article and it all makes sense. I agree that modest dress helps maintain more pure thoughts, be it on a girl or boy. You do attract the kind of person you dress for. Disrespect your body with immodest dress and you might get a person that will disrespect your body too. If you get a great, respectable person, you lucked out!"

"To be honest I don't believe what others are saying about that talk. Elder Callistor would never put anyone of us down women or men in any way. He is just talking about be more modesty. Which is good because I know there are lots of girls out there that are inmodest. Whether or not there part of the church or not. It is distracting to others and as we strive to become clean and have modesty we are making the right choices. Helping others to stay away from the evil that is out there. This is not wrong of what elder callistor said. He is right it does drive the spirit away and we are focus on something else. Think of the spiritual side. "Would you wear these clothes if heavenly Father or Jesus Christ was standing right beside you?" That's what I ask myself to consider others in the progress not just myself. I choose to be more modest and make more right choices in life."

"Quick question: does the way a woman dress inspire thoughts in men, good AND bad?

Answer: Yes, it does.

My husband and I have talked several times about this. What I read from this link (since I haven't read that particular article in the Ensign yet) is that Callister is saying that morality is on BOTH people.

Yes, men are responsible for their own thoughts, but that doesn't mean I can prance around dressed like a prostitute believing that I don't have ANY responsibility for his thoughts."

"I know the difference in treatment from experience. When I dressed immodest I attracted a lower quality of guy. When I dressed modestly I attracted a high quality of guy. So, I am a voice of experience, not blind naivete."

""But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Matthew 5:28

'Nuff said. Now, how about we females help our men along by not purposefully being the reason they are lusting after us."

"If the clothing we wear didn't make a difference, though, then it wouldn't be talked about at every conference.

If modestly didn't matter, it wouldn't be talked about at every conference."

"We may feel comfortable naked in the presence of God, but for the majority of our lives, it isn't only God's presence that we are in."

"Because I know that Satan will prompt those thoughts in guys, I'm not going to assist the devil by wearing revealing clothing."

"Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act.

Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval."

"Prophets of God have continually counseled His children to dress modestly. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and you can be a good influence on others. Your dress and grooming influence the way you and others act.

Never lower your standards of dress. Do not use a special occasion as an excuse to be immodest. When you dress immodestly, you send a message that is contrary to your identity as a son or daughter of God. You also send the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval."

"To second guess his [Elder Callister] intents is just another way of saying we don't support the leaders of our Church, or believe that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to write what they wrote.

He in reality, didn't write anything different than all prophets have written."

"The ONLY person who gets to decide what Elder Callister's message was in that article is Elder Callister."

"I think that the majority of the time, when people get riled up, it's because of what they 'thought' the article said, rather than what the article actually said."

Here is a quote Elder Callister used: "The dress of a woman has a powerful impact upon the minds and passions of men. If it is too low or too high or too tight, it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure." The quote is from Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle of the Lord. Elder Callister said nothing different from what the prophets and apostles have been teaching.

Also, "For the Strength of Youth"

Your body is sacred. Respect it and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ and that you love Him.

Edited February 25, 2014 by apexviper

[LittleWyvern]

I don't think it unreasonable for a person to hold that some of the advice given in Elder Callister's talk can be harmful to some people in certain circumstances without that person suddenly becoming apostate or needing to leave the Church.

[Vort]

I don't think it unreasonable for a person to hold that some of the advice given in Elder Callister's talk can be harmful to some people in certain circumstances without that person suddenly becoming apostate or needing to leave the Church.

Hmmm. Was there someone who suggested such a thing, here or elsewhere?

[LittleWyvern]

Hmmm. Was there someone who suggested such a thing, here or elsewhere?

Well, we're using terms like "distrusting the Church," "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed," and "[insert label here] Mormon" so broadly and vaguely in support of claims of apostasy that I'm honestly not even sure.

[apexviper]

Need I point out Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel?

1 Nephi 16:2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.

Nephi speaks the truth. If we are righteous we will not be offended by the truth. If we take offense by something God, or his servants, says, we have something to repent for that is related to the message. Laman and Lemuel told Nephi he spoke harshly. He did not change the message because he knew what God wanted to be said. Are we really going to backbite our leaders merely because they speak what the Holy Ghost would have them speak? To ask what Peter asked, are we to obey men rather than God?

[estradling75]

I think Jacob response to the Idea that his words might hurt some people is relavant

Jacob 2

9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.

[apexviper]

I think Jacob response to the Idea that his words might hurt some people is relavant

Jacob 2

9 Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God, to admonish you according to your crimes, to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds; and those who have not been wounded, instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.

Looks like we both had similar thoughts.

[Vort]

Well, we're using terms like "distrusting the Church," "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed," and "[insert label here] Mormon" so broadly and vaguely in support of claims of apostasy that I'm honestly not even sure.

I cannot find the term "distrust" in this thread at all, except for your post (and now this one), so I don't know what you're talking about.

"Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" was quoted, one time, by apexviper. Do you disagree with the scripture and believe it's actually just fine to speak evil of the Lord's anointed? If not, I don't know what you're talking about.

Other than a single instance of the term "anti-Mormon", the only "[label] Mormon" reference I can find is one use by MOE. Since he was not speaking in agreement with the position you dislike, he cannot be the one to whom you're referring. So again, I don't know what you're talking about.

So, in brief: What are you talking about?

[prisonchaplain]

prisonchaplain says, "If we keep on sinning, we can proclaim that we are Christian all we like--we're still putting ourselves in danger of hellfire."

Inmate calls home and says, "PC says Uncle X is going to hell."

Was my teaching harmful to some people in certain circumstances? If so, then it means nothing to say so. People misconstrue all the time. Occasionally it is the fault of the speaker. Clumsy words delivered clumsily. More often, it is the hearer. We all come with our own backgrounds and issues. Some can be very sensitive on certain issues, and quick to jump to conclusions. Speakers can only be so cautious.

When I prepare to listen to the word of God I always pray that God will anoint my ears to hear what the Spirit is saying. I also ask for courage to obey.

If spiritual leaders are going to have their teachings sliced and diced like a politician's speach during a heated election battle then we truly are in the End Times.

[Wingnut]

I cannot find the term "distrust" in this thread at all, except for your post (and now this one), so I don't know what you're talking about.

"Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" was quoted, one time, by apexviper. Do you disagree with the scripture and believe it's actually just fine to speak evil of the Lord's anointed? If not, I don't know what you're talking about.

Other than a single instance of the term "anti-Mormon", the only "[label] Mormon" reference I can find is one use by MOE. Since he was not speaking in agreement with the position you dislike, he cannot be the one to whom you're referring. So again, I don't know what you're talking about.

So, in brief: What are you talking about?

I'll attempt to speak for LW and suggest that he thinks that disagreement with a General Authority and thinking that said GA could have chosen his words more carefully, does not equate to "speaking evil," and the suggestion that it is, is hyperbole.

[LittleWyvern]

I cannot find the term "distrust" in this threadl

"Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" was quoted, one time, by apexviper.

Other than a single instance of the term "anti-Mormon", the only "[label] Mormon" reference I can find is one use by MOE.

So, in brief: What are you talking about?

Since when did this turn into an interrogation? Fine, people may have used slightly different wording than I put in my post, but I do not think you so blind as to not see the big picture of what I'm trying to say just because you can't find a certain quoted string when you CTRL+F the thread. Post #35 is exactly what I was trying to say. I'm getting the feeling that you're trying to wrest or trick my words into something that they're not, otherwise why would you ask me if I think it's ok to speak evil against the Lord's anointed?

[Just_A_Guy]

Can you explain what you mean by "what we all instinctively know," please?

A few thoughts:

1. Males do tend to get sexually aroused by images.

2. When you've got a group of males thinking "I want sex", a certain subset of that group will take it--regardless of the potential partner's own consent or lack thereof.

3. A certain class of male is going to gravitate towards females who (inter alia) are dressed in a particular way.

4. Since we're talking about rape: There is no fail-safe way to avoid getting raped (or mugged, for that matter). But there are certain things a person can do to reduce one's chances of getting raped (or mugged); and the fact that it is painful to think on these after-the-fact doesn't mean we should quit pointing out that they exist. If you really want to reduce the incidence of rape, teaching women that rape is inevitable and unavoidable--and attacking anyone who says otherwise--seems an odd way to go about it.

5. We do have a responsibility, as brothers and sisters in the gospel, to take reasonable measures to avoid causing our fellow believers to stumble. If Mitt Romney turns up at Sacrament Meeting with his suit jacket made of $100 bills, and I point out "er, you know that brother-so-and-so over there is struggling with abject poverty and has been diagnosed with kleptomania; and that suit of yours might create create some emotional/mental problems for him"--it would be rather churlish of Romney to say "well, that's not MY fault--HE just needs to learn to control himself!". And Romney's then orchestrating a "wealth walk" with other millionaires so that they can flash their bling through the most economically depressed neighborhoods in town, would be just plain idiocy.

While a little more gender balance in the article would have been nice; nothing Callister wrote was actually false. And it's interesting (and telling!) that [outside of this forum] the discussion has played out the way it has, rather than--say--taking the underlying principles of modesty and common sense that Callister is teaching and asking how they might be applied to males as well as females. Hence, my suspicion that this whole thing is (for many--certainly not all) just a proxy war over the Church's teachings on chastity generally.

I'll attempt to speak for LW and suggest that he thinks that disagreement with a General Authority and thinking that said GA could have chosen his words more carefully, does not equate to "speaking evil," and the suggestion that it is, is hyperbole.

I can get behind that; and I think that in this particular forum--among those who take exception to Callister's remarks--that's pretty much what has been happening. But that's not what's happening throughout most of the bloggernacle.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[apexviper]

My statement about all of this isn't entirely about agreeing or disagreeing with General Authorities although I'm sure Heavenly Father expects us to trust Him with His decisions of who He calls as servants; I also don't think Heavenly Father becomes too pleased when we disagree with His doctrine.

The main issue I was bringing up was criticizing a General Authority. Whether we agree or disagree with what they say, we will never be in the right to criticize God's anointed. When we criticize the General Authorities we push ourselves with the temple recommend question that asks if we sustain the church leaders and officers.

[Vort]

Since when did this turn into an interrogation?

What, I'm not allowed to ask what you mean?

Fine, people may have used slightly different wording than I put in my post, but I do not think you so blind as to not see the big picture of what I'm trying to say just because you can't find a certain quoted string when you CTRL+F the thread.

This isn't hard, LW. You are implying things in what you write. I think your implications are false, so I'm asking you to substantiate them.

Post #35 is exactly what I was trying to say.

And thus we come full circle. Let's try this again, going back to #35:

I don't think it unreasonable for a person to hold that some of the advice given in Elder Callister's talk can be harmful to some people in certain circumstances

without that person suddenly becoming apostate or needing to leave the Church

.

So then, let me be as explicit as I can so you don't misunderstand me. You openly imply, in fact practically assert, that someone suggested that those who think Elder Callister's wording can be taken harmfully by some are "becoming apostate" or are "needing to leave the Church".

Right? This is obviously what you're saying, right? That's the clear implication of your words. Or are you just pulling random ideas out of thin air and making a statement apropos of nothing whatsoever?

No, of course not. That was your implication.

Fine, then. I do not believe that anyone here said any such thing as you were implying they did. I think what you imply is false.

Now, what is the best way for me to point this out (assuming I do wish to point it out and not just let it slide by)? I can think of several ways:

1. I can start a big fuss and accuse you of intentionally bending the truth (a.k.a. lying) by suggesting such a falsehood.

2. I can mock you by bringing up a whole bunch of other irrelevant things that people ought not be subjected to when they object to Elder Callister's wording: Branding with a hot iron, having their eyes gouged out, forcible tattooing, application of leeches, requirements to attend remedial reading courses at the University of Utah, etc.

3. I can ask you to point out where such things were ever said or written, to give you a chance to (a) show where they were said that I missed or (b) gracefully withdraw the implied assertion and rephrase what you wrote.

Doubtless there are many other ways. I chose #3 above, which I thought to be a very reasonable (and not unfriendly) course of action.

I'm getting the feeling that you're trying to wrest or trick my words into something that they're not, otherwise why would you ask me if I think it's ok to speak evil against the Lord's anointed?

It was a slow-thrown softball, so you could easily disclaim any such intent. Far from "wresting" your words, I have adhered scrupulously to what you have said. That is the problem, in fact: You appear to be saying something other than you mean. Wingnut attempted to divine what you really meant, yet what she claimed you meant is not obvious from the words you used.

I was attempting to give you a chance to withdraw your implied false accusations and/or clarify what you were trying to say. So far, you haven't done anything of the sort, but just gotten all huffy and claimed hurt feelings.

[Wingnut]

Thanks for expounding upon that statement. When I first read it, I was fuming, thinking that you were, in essence, saying, "we all know that how a woman dresses determines how a man will treat her, so let's stop pretending we don't," and leaving it at that. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you explained, I'm less fumey, because I see it's not so single-faceted. :)

4. Since we're talking about rape: There is no fail-safe way to avoid getting raped (or mugged, for that matter). But there are certain things a person can do to reduce one's chances of getting raped (or mugged); and the fact that it is painful to think on these after-the-fact doesn't mean we should quit pointing out that they exist. If you really want to reduce the incidence of rape, teaching women that rape is inevitable and unavoidable--and attacking anyone who says otherwise--seems an odd way to go about it.

Here's the thing. I don't understand why we're (society "we," not necessarily Mormon "we") teaching women about avoiding being raped. Why aren't we teaching men not to rape?*

While a little more gender balance in the article would have been nice; nothing Callister wrote was actually false. And it's interesting (and telling!) that [outside of this forum] the discussion has played out the way it has, rather than--say--taking the underlying principles of modesty and common sense that Callister is teaching and asking how they might be applied to males as well as females. Hence, my suspicion that this whole thing is (for many--certainly not all) just a proxy war over the Church's teachings on chastity generally.

I'll attempt to speak for LW and suggest that he thinks that disagreement with a General Authority and thinking that said GA could have chosen his words more carefully, does not equate to "speaking evil," and the suggestion that it is, is hyperbole.

I can get behind that; and I think that in this particular forum--among those who take exception to Callister's remarks--that's pretty much what has been happening. But that's not what's happening throughout most of the bloggernacle.

This thread is actually the first I'm hearing about the controversy. I haven't subscribed to the Ensign in a year or two, because I wasn't reading it much (except for Conference issues), and I can get it all online anyway. I haven't read the article in question, nor any conversation about it outside of this one. I actually haven't even gone looking for conversation about it since reading this thread today. I expect I know what the dialogue is though...quite similar to the outcry over Sister Dalton's use of a particular out-of-context scripture verse to illustrate the importance of virtue.

*Yes, I know that rapists are not exclusively male, and victims are not exclusively female, but within the context of this conversation, that's what we're going with.

[Vort]

Here's the thing. I don't understand why we're (society "we," not necessarily Mormon "we") teaching women about avoiding being raped. Why aren't we teaching men not to rape?*

The assertion is false. We do teach men not to rape, just like we teach men not to kill or steal. But we still have rape, murder, and theft, despite this. So in addition to teaching men (and women) not to do bad things, we also teach women (and men) to protect themselves from evildoers.

One of the lies of feminism is that if we just put the onus of rape prevention on men instead of women (which is itself a lie), all rape would cease. Note that the very site you link to is an extended, vicious lie. Men cannot "stop rape", any more than they can stop murder, abortion, or naughty language. If such acts were stoppable by men, they would have been stopped long ago. The site is another feminist lie designed to pretend that innocent men are somehow guilty of rape by association with other bepenised humans.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Vort

[applepansy]

We teach them that modesty is a construct built in speech, action, and dress. And that to behave modestly we speak, act, and dress in a way that doesn't distract from who we are. We teach these things as a form of communication about ourselves. But we teach our children to dress for themselves, not to dress for other people.

Then its amazing to me that you took exception to Elder Callister's talk. I took the Ensign with me this morning so I could read it and respond in this thread.

What I took away from his talk/Ensign article is exactly what you said here.

Not one word he used referred to rape victims.