Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Moliere]

This is one of those bizarro moments when you realize someone is arguing that "it is better to be dead than to have consensual sex" is a rational alternative explanation. Good hell.

I distinctly remember my mom telling her kids this exact thing. She instructed her daughters that if they ever get raped they should fight back and never give in even until death. I found it an odd teaching 25 years ago and I still find it odd (although now it's more offensive). I don't care what any of the lawyers on this board say about the meaning of the quotes posted here, it is clear that how JL described it above was the generally meaning within the church. That's the only thing that matters. All this parsing of words and use of dictionaries is only to serve to show that the brethren were not technically wrong in their statements.

Ultimately, this is the very reason that I pay little attention to general conference these days. In 20 years we'll look back and parse through crazy apostle statements on gays and women's roles.

[Moliere]

And yet we admire the martyrs who would die rather than abandon their Christian faith. Bizzare, indeed.

Really AA? There's a difference between choosing to not deny your faith and being raped.

[Moliere]

Please show me the person who "struggled to their death" because of Elder Scott's talk.

Everyone needs to be forgiven.

OH MY HELL!!

[All-American]

Really AA? There's a difference between choosing to not deny your faith and being raped.

As a matter of fact, that has been my point from the beginning. (Go back and read the post to which my comment was responding. You'll notice that it wasn't about rape. Rape victims are blameless.)

[LA Ute]

I'm not a student of this thread, I've only seen the RGS quote. I am trying to say the following carefully, so please read it carefully. If you talk to a qualified and experienced therapist, he or she will tell you that it is not unusual for a sexual abuse victim, over time, to become complicit -- to some extent -- in the abuse. I think it is the broad consensus that the victim's responsibility in such cases is almost always minimal, if there is any at all. And yet there can be some complicity. The guilt that victims feel in such cases is wildly out of proportion to their actual responsibility, and it is a huge task for therapists (and good bishops, for LDS people) to get them past it. It can take years. I think that is what Elder Scott is talking about. I have personal knowledge that what he said in that talk was like the balm of Gilead to some people in that situation.

[wuapinmon]

I'm not a student of this thread, I've only seen the RGS quote. I am trying to say the following carefully, so please read it carefully. If you talk to a qualified and experienced therapist, he or she will tell you that it is not unusual for a sexual abuse victim, over time, to become complicit -- to some extent -- in the abuse. I think it is the broad consensus that the victim's responsibility in such cases is almost always minimal, if there is any at all. And yet there can be some complicity. The guilt that victims feel in such cases is wildly out of proportion to their actual responsibility, and it is a huge task for therapists (and good bishops, for LDS people) to get them past it. It can take years. I think that is what Elder Scott is talking about. I have personal knowledge that what he said in that talk was like the balm of Gilead to some people in that situation.

Blame the victim??


NO!

[Indy Coug]

Blame the victim??


NO!

[PaloAltoCougar]

I'm not a student of this thread, I've only seen the RGS quote. I am trying to say the following carefully, so please read it carefully. If you talk to a qualified and experienced therapist, he or she will tell you that it is not unusual for a sexual abuse victim, over time, to become complicit -- to some extent -- in the abuse. I think it is the broad consensus that the victim's responsibility in such cases is almost always minimal, if there is any at all. And yet there can be some complicity. The guilt that victims feel in such cases is wildly out of proportion to their actual responsibility, and it is a huge task for therapists (and good bishops, for LDS people) to get them past it. It can take years. I think that is what Elder Scott is talking about. I have personal knowledge that what he said in that talk was like the balm of Gilead to some people in that situation.

I have a problem with the word "complicit" in that analysis, as it suggests voluntary participation in a wrongful act. I can see how the victim may become submissive, but only because the wrongdoer's actions have stripped away the victim's ability to resist or to make a genuinely rational choice. In contract law terms, a victim of sexual abuse lacks capacity to choose freely. "Complicit" should only be used for those who have that capacity. Submissiveness isn't complicity.

[San Juan Sun]

A few quick thoughts:

- I generally feel like it's a good idea to give a GA the benefit of the doubt
- I have little experience in sexual abuse and it's aftermath
- Generalizing about how some should or does feel is fraught with peril
- Speculating about a degree of complicity in sexual abuse is at best distasteful
- Any advice for the abused should be undertaken in the most sensitive of manners, if at all
- As a TBM, I think the best doctrinal approach would be to remember in Alma that Christ didn't just suffer for sins, but suffered all things so that He could succor his people. Feelings of hurt, guilt, complicity, etc. should be taken to him.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Did you mean to say that victims might begin to "feel complicit"? Your statement sounds less stupid if thats what you meant to write.

[Moliere]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ng-kidnappers/

Not the headline the church was hoping for:

Elizabeth Smart: Mormon teaching on sex stopped me from escaping kidnappers

[PaloAltoCougar]

Pro tip: if you are ever willing to give an inch when one of your points is refuted, it'll seem less like petulance when you do dig in your heels. At this point, you're not even considering the validity of anyone's statements; your only strategy is deny, deny, deny.

I do think some have made a little bit too much out of some of the GAs' comments, but some of them couldn't be any plainer, or more plainly harmful. If you care more about abuse victims than about propping up the infallibility of leaders that don't even claim to be, those comments are simply indefensible. Regardless, those comments are very easy to "misinterpret", and the church seems to agree given their efforts to de-emphasize them.

I concur on all counts, even with respect to the GA overswings. I think contemporary society is much too cavalier about the seriousness of sex outside of a committed relationship, and the Church wants to correct that, but I think sometimes the statements simply go too far.

[The Fourth Nephite]

What did Christ say about this? He said it was better to be dead than to cause harm to children. I agree with that.

He didn't tell the adulterous women to kill herself. He was merciful and told her to sin more.

He is quiet on the subject of whether the abused children should go and sin no more, but I suspect thats because this message board didn't exist in the meridian of time and he didn't think it was necessary to clarify this any further.

[San Juan Sun]

I suspect thats because this message board didn't exist in the meridian of time and he didn't think it was necessary to clarify this any further.

Maybe he did, and that hack Mormon edited it out.

[All-American]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ng-kidnappers/

Not the headline the church was hoping for:

Well, wait a minute. Didn't we just decide that the Church teaches that you have to resist to the death?