If God thinks that a woman should have put a struggle, and she did not, then to some degree she gave her consent. But you are right that a woman’s failure to struggle is no sin if the Lord feels that she did the right thing and was motivated by the right reasons. And assuming that God approves of her failure to struggle, he virtue is not impacted whatsoever. But then I imagine that is something the prophets already knew even before you informed them.

How about a woman who consents to rape because one of her children is being held hostage and will certainly be killed or badly injured if she fights her rapist? Certainly no virtue would be lost in that situation. Nor do I feel that any prophet would think so.

I don’t believe this is what SWK was trying to say. Look at the two comments:
1) There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation.
2) It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

Both are true statements, and stand on their own.

The first seems pretty obvious. If you were not a part of the decision, you are not responsible for the decision. If you dissociate in the doctor’s office, and he takes advantage of you sexually while you are “out of it,” then you are not responsible or condemned for it. Period.

The second one seems to be what you have taken umbrage to. In today’s “politically correct” world, it is better to allow the rape than to fight it: “just go along with it” kind of thing. So the Lord needs to forge that line in clear and unmistakable words.

As such, SWK’s second declaration should be seen as instructive, not condemnatory. If the rapist says he will kill you if you fight, then you fight — because it is better to die defending your virtue than to just give it up. If you struggle, and are yet defeated and the rape continues and you life to tell the tale, then there certainly is no condemnation — but the fighting is certainly to your advantage.

Having said that, SWK does not say the opposite. He does not say that “if you don’t fight, then you are responsible for the rape.” He does not declare that “if you live through it you are condemned.” So don’t try to read that into his comments.

Rape is a powerfully destructive event in the lives of most women. Fighting the rapist seems to lessen the emotional destructiveness for most women. (There are those whose sexual makeup is such that they don’t care either way, but they are not part of this discussion, on purpose.) If nothing else, fighting the rapist will relieve the victim of some of those feelings of guilt that will come as they progress through the steps of grief in their recovery.

Some might even say that their feelings of guilt come because they DID NOT struggle, and are worried about just what you are saying here — they might be condemned because they allowed the rape to continue. For them, I’d go back to sentence #1: it if was not voluntary, there is no condemnation.

So the two work together. A loving Heavenly Father is not going to condemn a woman who is raped. Even if she comes to that realization that fighting is futile and just “lays there and lets it happen.” The damnation falls on the rapist, 100%.

I suppose this might be one of those “harsh” comments that SWK might have reworded if he made a revision of the text. I don’t know. But the truth of both statements is still there. There truly are fates worse than death. There truly are things worth fighting to the death for. There truly are struggles worth making, even if it is under threat of physical harm.

I’m sorry that this doctrine is something you are seeing as “the psychological equivalent of rape.” No true servant of Heavenly Father would do such a thing — because Heavenly Father would not do such a thing.

If you keep that one point in mind, and use it as a rule of thumb, then you might be able to more clearly read comments like the one you quoted and come away with a better understanding of what was intended.

It’s well known that a nearly universal emotional reaction to the violation of being raped are unjustified feelings of guilt and shame, and feeling that one is somehow responsible for being attacked. To reinforce such feelings in a victim by telling them that they are indeed guilty because they didn’t struggle to the death, is the psychological equivalent of raping them all over again.

One of those methods of receiving revelation is to read the revelations given to General Authorities and communicated by them by word written or spoken. If a bishop (Judge of Israel, Shepard of God’s flock) counsels us to read the Miracle of Forgiveness as a part of our repentance process from some sin, then that is as official as it gets. Bishops have done this in the past, are doing this at present and are encouraged to continue recommending MoF by stake and general authorities. The only unique counsel they give, and they give it consistently, with regard to the MoF is that a person read the last part first (about the atonement) and the first part last (about sins to be repented of). I suppose a person could ignore their bishop and risk arriving at the Judgment Bar unable to explain away why they ignored the righteous counsel of their priesthood leader called and ordained by God, and continued to live a life of sin in whatever degree, instead of submitting to wise counsel and learning how to live righteously during their probation.

Goldarn: Using your definition of “official doctrine” you would be allowed to disregard all the general conference talks ever given since the restoration (excluding the few that actually made it into the Doctrine and Covenants) How many talks do the apostles and prophets need to give on how the true Church of Jesus Christ has, and always will have, an open cannon of scripture. Moses 1: 4 “for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.” And how many times will you sustain the general authorities as “prophets, seers and REVELATORS” before you decided to accept them as such?