NOM

Non-consensual immorality has me reeling today. It is not a thing. It does not exist. Being moral or immoral requires a choice, if something is non-consensual then there was no choice and therefore it was neither moral nor immoral.

To suggest that getting raped is somehow immoral is morally reprehensible. Shame on you Mr. Cook.

I agree! That phrase causes me much annoyance and even anger, especially coming from a self aggrandized morcorporate high roller! It's like saying "unintentional bigotry". Perhaps if Mr. Cook was forced at gunpoint to be ordained a member of the 12, that could be called non-consensual immorality!

Rob4Hope posted up this movie clip in another thread. I think it's applicable to Mr. Cook and other COBlers that make up BS language to try and nuance the real truth, untruths and inconvenient truths. Only in this case, it's a legitimate word: culpable. While the COB continues to blame and smear members and victims of abuse, I'm calling the COB and it's cronies CULPABLE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjtIyY480YY

Warning - strong language in this one.

It follows the same patterns always used.

"Among" the ancestors of the American Indians.
"A few months why of her 15th birthday"
"A special witness of Jesus Christ"
"Non consensual immorality"

What do we expect from an institutionally dishonest organization that claims to speak on behalf of gods will?

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Somebody with more time could probably come up with a better list.

Here's a pretty good article that would have helped cook choose a better word. Rather than label everything under the umbrella of immorality perhaps he could have chosen something less black and white like sexual ethics.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... thics.html

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:43 pm Those are just a few off the top of my head. Somebody with more time could probably come up with a better list.

"Carefully worded denials."


P.S. As someone pointed out: The VAST MAJORITY of what goes on in the temple is "Non-Consensual". (How can dead people consent?)

It has been months since I posted anything on NOM - I thought I had worked my way past my issues with Mormonism. And then.... so many stories surfacing lately about how thoughtlessly women and others without power in the Church are treated. I chalk "non-consensual immorality" up to thoughtlessness. No consideration given to people who have been abused.It is the same dismissive approach in the public messages responding to all of the horrible stories that have appeared.It makes me livid when they say that discipline could include excommunication. Could? It should be mandatory! If sexual activity outside of marriage is one of the most serious sins a Mormon can commit, then how is it that FORCING someone into sexual activity is less serious? And how does a culture that says it "honours" women and is rooted in family, lets men prey on women and children. Why are accusations not taken seriously and not reported to the authorities? Why do members feel that they have to go through Church channels and not go directly to the police?

None of this makes sense to me.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:46 pm P.S. As someone pointed out: The VAST MAJORITY of what goes on in the temple is "Non-Consensual". (How can dead people consent?)

So true. I didn't consent to those creepy hands!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:58 pm Here's a pretty good article that would have helped cook choose a better word. Rather than label everything under the umbrella of immorality perhaps he could have chosen something less black and white like sexual ethics.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... thics.html

Under "what God allows" we need to include things like a father sending his daughters out to be raped (Lot) a father I pregnating both his daughters (again Lot, now I know the story says that the daughters found him drunk and seduced him, but that is BS. If he was SO drunk that he did not recognize his own daughters when he was alone with them in the wilderness, then he was way too drunk to get an erecting, so blaming the daughters and saying they were drunk is a real common excuse that incestuous men make) and where does marital rape fall on what God allows? I do not know of any Biblical prohibition against violence against a wife that refuses sex.

All the things that go against consent should be condemned by God, then a second catagory could be those nonviolent and consensual things God disapproves of. So, really there should be three categories. 1. Horrible violent things God finds abhorrent, 2. things God disapproves of, and 3. things God approves of. But religion has only ever worried about female purity and less about violence against women.

I've been mulling over the possible reasons Elder Cook called sexual assault "non-consensual immorality." It seems most likely that it comes from the fact that Mormons worship purity.

That's just one of Mormonism's many idols. Some others are the Q15, the "ideal" family, and its own superiority. The pantheon has kind of gotten out of hand.

...or as it is known among normal people...rape.

There is a thread on reddit that discusses this. I would highly recommend taking a few minutes and reading it and the comments. Remember that Quentin L. Cook is an attorney by training and profession. Words matter, words mean things. His words are carefully chosen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... making_up/

Words matter, and language defines the landscape of ideas and thoughts a person is able to think. By replacing the word "rape" with "non-consensual immorality", the church not only implies that there might be something immoral about being a victim of rape, it also nudges members away from even being able to think that a priesthood leader could be a rapist.

excerpts from the comments:

"Exactly. Rape is done to someone, and “non-consensual immorality” is done with someone. Two small words, but they make a big difference."
------
"Because of the way our brains work, we tend to filter out negative prefixes and actively associate words placed next to each other. "Non-consensual immorality" just reinforces the idea that victims are somehow immoral and on some level were probably complicit. This is just evil and wrong on so many levels. "
------
"You are right of course, and maybe cook even intended it to refer to the perpetrator. The problem is it is ambiguous, and can also be used to refer to the victim. People are angry that the singular reference to this issue in conference was so ambiguous, and basically serves to equate consensual sex with sexual violence as comparable sins."

Reuben wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:18 pm I've been mulling over the possible reasons Elder Cook called sexual assault "non-consensual immorality." It seems most likely that it comes from the fact that Mormons worship purity.

That's just one of Mormonism's many idols. Some others are the Q15, the "ideal" family, and its own superiority. The pantheon has kind of gotten out of hand.

I just think the word "sex" or any of its forms are too dirty to be said in conference so Cook used what he felt was an equivalent word. Sex = immorality in the church's narrative.

Hermey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:44 pm "Non-consensual immorality" just reinforces the idea that victims are somehow immoral and on some level were probably complicit. This is just evil and wrong on so many levels. "

This is a good point, about Cook carefully choosing his words. As that quote implies the COB and Cook try to make the victim seem complicit in some way. This was the same method Joe Bishop and the church painted about the sister who was abused by him/them. They dummy it down and never used the word rape and try to make her/the victim seem equal to or worse than him/the abuser. For an organization claiming divine revelation from an all loving god, they sure enjoy the use of half truths, lying for the lord and nuanced language. They are no different than any other corrupt institution that's trying to control the narrative and stay in control.