Comments by Elder Packer on Personal Temptation

"Everyone is tested. One might think it is unfair to be singled out and subjected to a particular temptation, but this is the purpose of mortal life—to be tested. And the answer is the same for everyone: we must, and we can, resist temptations of any kind."

Rape and the Difficulty of Unclear Barriers to Sexual Intimacy

With sexual intimacy, Mormons put a firm line from the beginning of a relationship- nothing past kissing, pretty much - and then take it away entirely after marriage. When the line is removed entirely after marriage (hopefully after the couple has already established a strong relationship of love and trust), they are free to explore intimacy together without fear. What are the consequences of having no definite line, or multiple lines, of sexual intimacy that are crossed - like the "bases" analogy from middle school? There are more possible rules that can be broken, for one thing. It's more stressful. There is more potential for misunderstanding, hurt feelings, awkwardness, violation of respect, and most dangerously, there is more potential to lose control.

Rape is an extremely sensitive issue to discuss. From my experience in a program run by the people who invented political correctness, I've noticed that often when a sensitive issue is raised, when people articulate a particular position using words or phrases we dislike, we tend to ignore the validity of their point, latch onto the forbidden language and crucify the speaker. Don’t do that to me, because I’m not clever enough to give all the disclaimers you would want me to make. Just consider what I’m actually saying and don't make assumptions about what I’m not.

Statistics show that rape is usually perpetrated by people with whom we are familiar - often people we are dating and with whom we already share some level of intimacy. Is there a difference between rape by a stranger and rape by a boyfriend, particularly one we have already experimented with sexually in the past or even had intercourse with previously?

Forced intercourse, when it is the culmination of multiple levels of gradually accepted intimacy, can be just as horrific, just as scarring as the violent molestation of a stranger. However, the unequivocal and ferocious blame that results from defining both as rape needs to considered when describing both situations.

The word rape complicates our discussion, because it implies a very black and white view of sexual misconduct. The word rape used to refer to a very specific crime - sex forced on someone who had abided by society’s rules of proper sexual conduct and was therefore blameless. In a society where there are no rules of proper sexual conduct and where intercourse can welcomed just as arbitrarily as it is rejected, and where intercourse can be forced in a variety of situations of varying levels of coercion, malice, and premeditation, from strangers, first dates, or long-time sexual partners, and still called rape, our understanding of and discussion of the issue’s complexity is impeded by the black and white connotations of the word itself.

Because of our liberal views on sexual intimacy, the horrific crime of rape can reflect a failure of both members of the relationship to establish clear and realistic boundaries from the beginning - and how and when they may be crossed. Even if there are clear rules, if they are not tied to a concrete, meaningful event that occurs outside of the heat of the bedroom, like marriage, the individuals involved know that the rules are somewhat arbitrary and that they might suddenly change at any time; they are much less likely to respect them.

There are two potential crimes, then, that may be involved in a rape. Although the rape is still entirely the fault of the one committing it, guilt may be shared for a separate crime, which is foolishness, or negligence. When neither party is sure where the limits of intimacy are at a given time, either for themselves or the other person, they allow an environment where irreparable damage can be done with very little effort… or malicious intent. Someone who breaks through a very little fence in front of a nuclear reactor and blows it up is still entirely culpable for a major nuclear disaster - but someone else is to blame for not having built a giant stone wall with sufficient security, much sooner, and much farther away. We should be realistic in what behavior we expect of ourselves and other human beings, and recognize our own need for prudence without claiming responsibility for the potential failings of others.

The consequences of rape are terrible, but because our definition of proper sexual conduct is so varied and undefined, the definition of improper conduct is likewise unclear. Thus, the nature of rape is watered down; it seems less serious, and is therefore more likely to be perpetrated. When members of society have a clear understanding of what level of intimacy is acceptable (before and after marriage, in LDS culture) and generally abides by it, the act of forced intercourse is a huge crime, with clear and complete assignment of blame. When the standard is gone, or vague, then the definition of rape is unclear as well. By allowing ourselves to be in a situation where the norms are unclear, or when they seem to contradict, we open the door to whichever option our appetite chooses in the moment.

Am I diminishing the seriousness of rape? No! Clearly, regardless of the circumstances, the results are real and they are often permanent. But the answer is not to demonize rapists nor redefine rape - if someone does blow up the nuclear reactor, it is their fault for doing so, but we must hold ourselves responsible for not protecting it. The solution is to build larger walls around sexual conduct in general. If we continue to tear down walls of propriety and eliminate universal standards around sex, we cannot expect that our one remaining wall - that a woman needs to consent to intercourse - will somehow be respected and maintained. We have created a wall-destroying culture. We are not likely to make an exception.

In Defense of Stay-At-Home Motherhood

One of the differences between housewives who are happy and those who are unhappy may be how they plan and use their time at home. For those of us who like structure, homebound motherhood carries an additional challenge. Our time is our own. We are self-employed, with varying amounts of required tasks depending on our homes and the number/ages of children. When all our time is consumed by direct parenting - with newborns, for example - it's clear that our work and our presence in the home is vital. When we have time left over, we alone are responsible for how we use it.

Those who claim sexism for stay-at-home moms hold several underlying, unspoken assumptions: Contributing economically to society is more important than ensuring the development of healthy, intelligent, moral, socially responsible people. Raising children well is neither challenging nor important. Nothing important can be done from home. What these arguments don’t acknowledge is how many things women can do and what an important contribution they can make as they make the home their primary focus. J.K. Rowling, for example, is a stay-at-home mom. Community building, raising awareness for important issues, building relationships with friends and neighbors, relieving suffering, gaining an education, beautifying the world, winning nobel prizes - you just have to be a more responsible self-employee. Also, you generally can’t make as much money. Having a two-parent home, in general, prevents at least one parent from having to worry about their activities being profitable, and can instead focus on developing themselves, their family, and their community. The issue is whether we as Americans increasingly measure our self worth in exculsively economic terms, and whether our issue with being stay-at-home moms that it’s not fun, or that it’s unpaid?

When we're willing to let go of the extra income and see our lives and our goals for what they are, we may find that unpaid, volunteer mothers with a husband supporting them have the greatest possible opportunity for self-fulfillment and the greatest freedom to impact the world. Neal A Maxwell mused: "When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire or the shaping sound of lullabies? The great armistices made by military men or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling than what happened in congresses?" We know this! We believe this! Then why don't we as a society place more value on the activities that shape our society? Why don't we let this desire circumvent our desire for more stuff?