Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Northwestcoug]

How about a simpler message:

"If you harbor feelings that you are in anyway responsible for the abuse that you have endured, STOP NOW! Your innocence and trust was used against you by someone with evil intentions. They have manipulated you to make you feel responsible for their atrocious actions. Seek counsel with your bishop and appropriate professionals if you need help dealing with the emotional toll that these actions have had on your life."

Well said. It's a shame he, nor the prophets before him, didn't say that in the first place.

[PaloAltoCougar]

While I think the particulars of the RGS case are interesting, I'm more intrigued by what the debate reveals about how we interpret the words of General Authorities. On the one hand, some commenters argue for what's sometimes called a "charitable interpretation" of their words, which basically consists in an attempt to maximize the truth value of someone's statements. Thus we allow for malaprops, ill-chosen turns of phrase, unfortunate examples, and so on. That is, generally speaking, not only a sound approach to interpretation but even a necessary one, since we recognize that our interlocutors are fallible, cognitively limited, occasionally inarticulate, and so on.

But of course the principle of charitable interpretation become a bit more tricky when it is applied to the words of one regarded as a mouthpiece of the Lord. We are required to assume that their words carry greater heft, particularly when delivered in a quasi-official venue such as General Conference, than they would if they were spoken casually or by someone else. Our insistence on always speaking of the FP and Q12 as "prophets, seers, and revelators" when delivering an ostensibly authoritative address oddly enough makes it more, not less, difficult to interpret them charitably (again, that means = 'interpret so as to maximize the truth value of their utterance'). We would seem to be required to assume prima facie that their words and views are in fact more authoritative than are our own. This creates real problems when something is said in certain venues that seems demonstrably false or ill-advised. It is one thing to say that we reject any dogma of infallibility on the part of our leaders; it is another thing altogether to say what this actually means in practice.

This is a tension that never goes away for a believing member of the church and we all tend to draw the line between authoritative and non-authoritative utterance in a slightly different place.

Apt observations, HT. This thread provides an interesting survey of each participant's interpretative approach.

[LA Ute]

Maybe the problem with Elder Scott's talk from 21 years ago is that he relied too much on the psychology experts of his time -- you know the same establishment that listed homosexuality as a mental disorder 40 years ago.

Is his talk from 1992 being used in lesson manuals? Just curious. Anyone know?

Also, is this the statement that has some people concerned?

At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse.

First, those are 20 words in a talk 2,091 words long. Proportion is important. Second, if anyone is saying that what Elder Scott describes is simply impossible in all cases, I respectfully disagree. I do agree with Jarid that it is certainly exceedingly rare for that to occur, and when it does the "degree of responsibility" is probably in that .0001% category I mentioned. But it's very real, and disproportionately large, in the victim's mind. If victim is someone who cares about spiritual matters, they need spiritual healing. I think those are the folks he was addressing.

At this point I am arguing about counting angels on the head of a pin, so I will stop.

[LA Ute]

Not to put words in LA Ute's mouth, but I think he's trying to say that a victim who may be .0001% responsible for what happened feels as though he/she is much more responsible for the abuse than he/she really is.

You are not putting words in my mouth. That's what I said.

As for straw men, Lebowski wouldn't know one if it sat down next to him. I am pretty sure that he also cheats at poker.

[ERCougar]

I need to bow out of this discussion, because it's turning me into a dick.
I feel like I need to reemphasize a final point, however. My mother (whom I have private unconfirmed suspicions was abused herself) worked really closely for years with Chieko Okasaki on the issue of sexual abuse in the church so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. What bothers me in this discussion is that it seems to be missing the point. I don't care to judge RGS or SWK or Moroni's intended meanings--it leads to (silly) arguments about 19th century colloquialisms and semantics. What seems much more important to me is that whatever the intent of the speaker, their statements have had and continue to have harmful effects on victims. So it doesn't really matter what any of our opinions are on the matter--if Elizabeth Smart says she thought of herself as chewed gum, then there's a problem, and it's not with Elizabeth Smart. If Soccermom retains a memory that it would be better to die than to be raped, or even to have premarital sex, then there's a problem, and it's not with Soccermom. I'm not asking for a textual change or an apology or anything like it. I'm asking for a better couching of the concept than listing Moroni 9:9 as the first scripture describing God's definition of virtue: https://www.lds.org/young-women/pers...irtue?lang=eng .

[Eddie]

I need to bow out of this discussion, because it's turning me into a dick.
I feel like I need to reemphasize a final point, however. My mother (whom I have private unconfirmed suspicions was abused herself) worked really closely for years with Chieko Okasaki on the issue of sexual abuse in the church so this is a bit of a sensitive subject. What bothers me in this discussion is that it seems to be missing the point. I don't care to judge RGS or SWK or Moroni's intended meanings--it leads to (silly) arguments about 19th century colloquialisms and semantics. What seems much more important to me is that whatever the intent of the speaker, their statements have had and continue to have harmful effects on victims. So it doesn't really matter what any of our opinions are on the matter--if Elizabeth Smart says she thought of herself as chewed gum, then there's a problem, and it's not with Elizabeth Smart. If Soccermom retains a memory that it would be better to die than to be raped, or even to have premarital sex, then there's a problem, and it's not with Soccermom. I'm not asking for a textual change or an apology or anything like it. I'm asking for a better couching of the concept than listing Moroni 9:9 as the first scripture describing God's definition of virtue: https://www.lds.org/young-women/pers...irtue?lang=eng .

I generally agree with you - but with one quibble.

Victims tend to see themselves as worthless - regardless of what scripture or LDS leaders say. Yes - this is something that needs to be addressed if victims are using scripture and/or church leader statements to corroborate what they already believe to be true. But the reality is that victims feel this outside of anything written in scripture or said by a leader.

So something needs to be done to send another message to the masses. But know that even by doing so - it won't change the fact that victims tend to feel guilt over what they might've done to prevent it from happening and a loss of worth over what was done to them. And this has nothing to do with LDS teachings. This is true for people who don't attend church or attend churches other than the LDS church, it is true for young children (who never would've heard about chewing gum or cupcakes).

To me, a bigger issue is what happens once a victim comes forward. And the research I've seen (though it is probably 10-15 years old) demonstrates that the primary factor in recovery for a child victim revolves around how their parent responds when hearing about it. (Which I think tends to corroborate my own anecdotal experience of self blame and feelings of worthlessness).

[Eddie]

One last story -

I know of a girl who was attending one of those Jr. High assemblies where they talk about sexual abuse and avoiding perpetrators. While listening to the presenters, it occurred to her for the first time that something that had happened to her years ago - when she was fairly young - was actually sexual abuse.

She knew, because she'd been taught over and over again (including in this school assembly), that sexual abuse was about the most horrible thing that could ever happen to anyone ever. And it upset her to know that something so horrible had happened to her. So she went to therapy. She was so upset about it she was beyond consolation - nearly out of control.

The therapist asked her a few questions about it. She asked her what was different in her life now that she knew that this had happened. How had things changed? Did it effect her family? Friends? Future? Anything else? It had been something that had occurred one time with an older child in a neighborhood where she hadn't lived for several years.

She ended up participating in a couple of therapy sessions - but once she realized that she was the same person she had always been with the same future ahead of her (and this was just a bad memory of something bad that had happened) she was able to move on.

Now - I don't want it to sound like I am trivializing things. Sexual abuse is a bad bad thing. It is not something I would ever excuse or dismiss. But I do wonder how much of the trauma and damage caused to the victim comes from their own perception and interpretation based on being told their whole life what a horrible thing it is. In this particular case, once the girl realized that something bad had happened to her, but she was OK - she was able to move on. Obviously there are degrees of abuse, and again - I don't want to minimize or trivialize abuse at all. But I do wonder how much it would help victims if the message and focus being communicated to kids was on it as being something to overcome and not something that is the most horrible thing ever.

[The Fourth Nephite]

Can you direct me to this passage? I don't remember Jesus advising anyone to sin more.

Oops, that should read, "sin no more".

[Blueintheface]

Well said. It's a shame he, nor the prophets before him, didn't say that in the first place.

Jarid is a de facto prophet so consider it canonized clarification.

[Jarid in Cedar]

One last story -

I know of a girl who was attending one of those Jr. High assemblies where they talk about sexual abuse and avoiding perpetrators. While listening to the presenters, it occurred to her for the first time that something that had happened to her years ago - when she was fairly young - was actually sexual abuse.

She knew, because she'd been taught over and over again (including in this school assembly), that sexual abuse was about the most horrible thing that could ever happen to anyone ever. And it upset her to know that something so horrible had happened to her. So she went to therapy. She was so upset about it she was beyond consolation - nearly out of control.

The therapist asked her a few questions about it. She asked her what was different in her life now that she knew that this had happened. How had things changed? Did it effect her family? Friends? Future? Anything else? It had been something that had occurred one time with an older child in a neighborhood where she hadn't lived for several years.

She ended up participating in a couple of therapy sessions - but once she realized that she was the same person she had always been with the same future ahead of her (and this was just a bad memory of something bad that had happened) she was able to move on.
Now - I don't want it to sound like I am trivializing things. Sexual abuse is a bad bad thing. It is not something I would ever excuse or dismiss. But I do wonder how much of the trauma and damage caused to the victim comes from their own perception and interpretation based on being told their whole life what a horrible thing it is. In this particular case, once the girl realized that something bad had happened to her, but she was OK - she was able to move on. Obviously there are degrees of abuse, and again - I don't want to minimize or trivialize abuse at all. But I do wonder how much it would help victims if the message and focus being communicated to kids was on it as being something to overcome and not something that is the most horrible thing ever.

Eddie, I was going to respond to your last post about how family/parents react to the discovery as a huge part in how children respond and feel about it, but you beat me to my main points with this post( I highlighted what I consider the biggest two points). And you are not minimizing the impact of sexual abuse. You are highlighting some of the main points that therapists try to address and help the victims to understand.

If the adults in a child's life act like the child has been damaged, they will feel damaged. If they focus their attention at reminding the child that there is nothing wrong with them. That someone did something wrong to them, but that they are still the same innocent beautiful child. They tend to do much better in the long run.

[Moliere]

Maybe the problem with Elder Scott's talk from 21 years ago is that he relied too much on the psychology experts of his time -- you know the same establishment that listed homosexuality as a mental disorder 40 years ago.

He should have relied more on revelation, but as we all tend to find out, revelation changes at a clip of about 20 years behind scientific research. (yes, I'm kidding....mostly)

[Danimal]

Maybe the problem with Elder Scott's talk from 21 years ago is that he relied too much on the psychology experts of his time -- you know the same establishment that listed homosexuality as a mental disorder 40 years ago.

Psychology experts of the time did not believe this at all. He was on his own for this one.

[Indy Coug]

Psychology experts of the time did not believe this at all. He was on his own for this one.

Yeah, I figured he probably was. I just thought I'd throw the question out for someone that would know one way or the other.

[Mormon Red Death]

The friggin' point is that perhaps if we took the time to look into this issue maybe we collectively come away with a different understanding of what the meaning/intent of the scripture was, rather than what it is. Then again, maybe we don't. I don't see what the problem is with bringing up the point that subsequent changes in the English leads us to read this differently now than it was understood back then.

"The way it is written" is the way it was written over 180 years ago. There very well could have been absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was written then, relative to our enlightened 21st century sensibilities. I could have written in the 1950s that I had a "gay old time" with a bunch of my male friends. The way it was written then was perfectly fine and would not have landed me in a church court.

I'm not the one being dismissive here; you and ERCougar are filling the role very nicely.

I have always heard that the book of Mormon was written speciffically for our day. In "our" day what does the loss of virtue mean?


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[Moliere]

So do all these crazy statements by church leaders fall under the "they were operating with limited light" similar to the Negro doctrine reversal (closest thing to the church admitting it was wrong) or are they merely going to be swept under the rug and correlated out? My guess is the latter.