Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Jarid in Cedar]

Most often, the victim is innocent. I believe that is beyond dispute. Where a choice is voluntary, and not made out of fear or compulsion, you may bear a degree of responsibility for it. No argument from me there. All in all, I think you could make the case that this quote is insensitive, but not that being raped is a sin, or that it is better to die than to be raped.

I am struggling to see an example where a victim is making any voluntary choices. RGS was directing his talk to people who were abused as children/teens. To make that statement to that group is beyond insensitive, it is deplorable.

Two people very close to me have been victims of sexual abuse(one as a 5-10 year old child and the other a preteen, age 11-13). Both felt a degree of responsibility for not saying anything about the abuse to their parents. Both were ashamed that they didn't do anything to stop it as they were abused multiple times over several years by the same person. They voluntarily ended up alone with that person on many occasions. The abuse became pretty much an expected routine whenever that person was around. There was never any fear of retribution against them from that person. They simply became resigned that this was how things were going to be when that person was around. They both have said that they didn't tell anyone because they were too ashamed to tell anyone and guilt paralyzed them whenever that person made advances. No fear, no compulsion. What degree of responsibility would RGS assume that they held?

[CardiacCoug]

Yeah, I would think that under any circumstance, the "victims of abuse who nevertheless bear some degree of blame for their own wrong choices" constituency is never going to be that big, or that the message they need to hear most is to cast the mote out of their own eye. As it turns out, when you spend your entire life in front of a microphone, you can't avoid saying something regrettable.

Look at this UVA: AA here is very much a TBM but knows he's not obligated to defend every bit of semi-canonical craziness he encounters. Of course the Church corporation is never going to admit an error, but at an individual level it's fine to acknowledge errors. If Church leaders stop saying something and it never made a damn bit of sense in the first place, then I think you're on very safe ground to just say, "Church leaders were wrong. We were wrong. We now have greater light and knowledge."

When they're doing gay Temple marriages 50 years from now that's exactly what people will be saying.

[UVACoug]

Ooh, so the "son" needle did hurt. Good. You're not just a mindless troll, like some of us have thought. But you didn't answer a single question and cleverly threw out a strawman instead (I'll show you which part if you were less clever and more oblivious).

I agree that what RGS said is absurd on its face, however, and is pretty hard to reconcile with any principle of goodness I can think of. You should now feel free to resume trying to prove that black is white, and watch out for the zebra crossing.

I don't even know why I bother. I came here because I was told that people here were more sensible and reasonable than people on CB. That isn't true. You are just as close minded as anywhere over there. You just take the other extreme position. Trying to have an honest conversation seems to be just as useless here as it is over there. I don't think I'll be wasting much time with this stuff anymore. Hope you all have fun reinforcing yourselves with your groupthink.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

[All-American]

Which really sucks when you have an entire religion hanging on your words and being counseled all their lives to listen and sustain you.

Well, that, and studying it out, praying, seeking guidance, and all that other stuff.

[All-American]

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.

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

[SoCalCoug]

I don't even know why I bother. I came here because I was told that people here were more sensible and reasonable than people on CB. That isn't true. You are just as close minded as anywhere over there. You just take the other extreme position. Trying to have an honest conversation seems to be just as useless here as it is over there. I don't think I'll be wasting much time with this stuff anymore. Hope you all have fun reinforcing yourselves with your groupthink.

Everyone but me is closed-minded. That's how it works.

[SoCalCoug]

Well, that, and studying it out, praying, seeking guidance, and all that other stuff.

Except that isn't all that supposed to result in confirmation to us of what the leaders have taught us?

[All-American]

Because you're being intellectually dishonest about what those quotes say and imply.

I disagree. Respectfully.

[UVACoug]

I think the way you jump to defend and in fact totally restate what RGS said isn't necessary. Would you agree with this approach?:

RGS sent the wrong message here -- the message that abuse victims (maybe even sexual abuse or rape) often bear some responsibility for the abuse and that guilty feelings that abuse victims have come from God. The Church does NOT in fact teach this and teaches that abuse victims are by definition completely innocent -- they are VICTIMS of abuse. This might be the reason that I'm pretty sure he hasn't said anything similar to this in 20 intervening years. He was wrong.

Doesn't that interpretation make more sense than going into hypotheticals about threesomes?

No, I don't think it does. I don't disagree with what you said ... and if someone did interpret what he said that way, it would be tragic. To the extent such damage has been caused by what he said, it is unfortunate and a clarification would be in order. I don't think that interpretation is anywhere close to what he was intending to say though. He was merely teaching the importance of repentance when one does sin. He isn't even condemning anywhere here. He is teaching repentance, not condemnation.

[Indy Coug]

Except that isn't all that supposed to result in confirmation to us of what the leaders have taught us?

Nope. Give them the Zeezrom treatment.

[UVACoug]

That statement is utterly ridiculous. Lord help you if you cannot see that.

Again ... I don't know why I even bother (especially with you). I meant that the victim is responsible for their choice, not their victimhood. It is "utterly ridiculous" that you can't see that from the context.

[All-American]

Except that isn't all that supposed to result in confirmation to us of what the leaders have taught us?

In fact, it should confirm two things: one, that the leaders are indeed teaching that (which is especially helpful if a statement is capable of being misinterpreted), and two, that the teaching is in fact from The Lord, rather than the individual.

[All-American]

Everyone but me is closed-minded. That's how it works.

And intellectually dishonest. Don't forget that.

[UVACoug]

and props to him for that. but what the hell was he thinking in the first place? what good is coming from that statement? is there a large contingent of abuse victims that need to finally own up to their role in the abuse?

geez...I'd have a hard time excusing that statement from my crazy neighbor, but an apostle? heh.

Maybe he wasn't thinking what you have concluded he was thinking.