Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[Mrs. Funk]

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.

Right. Complicity is not the same thing as responsibility for being abused. Having sex without protest after months or years of systematic abuse isn't consent. It's defeat. I think the issue is that it's not at all clear based on the RGS quote that this is what he means. In fact, he seems to specifically caveat that some victims may be responsible for the abuse they receive. I'm also very concerned that Elder Scott suggests that the degree of guilt/responsibility of a sexual abuse victim is something a bishop can or should help assess . . . because it means that once again, a victim *may* be responsible for his or her abuse. How is an untrained lay bishop supposed to make a fact-specific determination as to a victim's culpability, if it's even possible for a victim to be culpable? Too risky and too fraught with potential error. In my opinion, a bishop's sole role in the case of an abuse victim should be providing comfort and healing and providing resources for counseling.

[Moliere]

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

Um, that's the issue. She didn't resist to death and so she is worthless.

[Bruiserstone]

Right. Complicity is not the same thing as responsibility for being abused. Having sex without protest after months or years of systematic abuse isn't consent. It's defeat. I think the issue is that it's not at all clear based on the RGS quote that this is what he means. In fact, he seems to specifically caveat that some victims may be responsible for the abuse they receive. I'm also very concerned that Elder Scott suggests that the degree of guilt/responsibility of a sexual abuse victim is something a bishop can or should help assess . . . because it means that once again, a victim *may* be responsible for his or her abuse. How is an untrained lay bishop supposed to make a fact-specific determination as to a victim's culpability, if it's even possible for a victim to be culpable? Too risky and too fraught with potential error. In my opinion, a bishop's sole role in the case of an abuse victim should be providing comfort and healing and providing resources for counseling.

Well said Mrs.Funk!

[All-American]

Um, that's the issue. She didn't resist to death and so she is worthless.

Just a little odd that the headline would say that mormon teachings stopped her from escaping, when they clearly should have encouraged her to try to escape.

EDIT: I went back and reread the article. As it turns out, there is literally no mention of any doctrine or teaching that victims should resist to the death, or that they should prefer death to being the victim of a rape.

[LA Ute]

Right. Complicity is not the same thing as responsibility for being abused. Having sex without protest after months or years of systematic abuse isn't consent. It's defeat. I think the issue is that it's not at all clear based on the RGS quote that this is what he means. In fact, he seems to specifically caveat that some victims may be responsible for the abuse they receive. I'm also very concerned that Elder Scott suggests that the degree of guilt/responsibility of a sexual abuse victim is something a bishop can or should help assess . . . because it means that once again, a victim *may* be responsible for his or her abuse. How is an untrained lay bishop supposed to make a fact-specific determination as to a victim's culpability, if it's even possible for a victim to be culpable? Too risky and too fraught with potential error. In my opinion, a bishop's sole role in the case of an abuse victim should be providing comfort and healing and providing resources for counseling.

Bishops are supposed to refer people to professional counselors in such cases. Fast offering funds are available to pay for this. Our bishop does it all the time.

I hope people don't get too wrapped up in my use of the word "complicit." And wuap, you know me too well even to suggest I am advocating blaming the victim. Please.

Example: An adult abuser terrorizes a child into not telling. Kids almost never tell. And yet they will grow up hearing people teach them they should tell. They are also terribly confused about what is right and wrong -- when someone you trust starts abusing you at age 6, by the time you are 12 you are a mess. You make a conscious decision not to tell. Eventually the truth comes out, and you feel horrible guilt over not telling. So a .0001% responsibility for what happened becomes several orders of magnitude greater. It's awful. I wish I knew nothing about this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bishops are supposed to refer people to professional counselors in such cases. Fast offering funds are available to pay for this. Our bishop does it all the time.

I hope people don't get too wrapped up in my use of the word "complicit." And wuap, you know me too well even to suggest I am advocating blaming the victim. Please.

Example: An adult abuser terrorizes a child into not telling. Kids almost never tell. And yet they will grow up hearing people teach them they should tell. They are also terribly confused about what is right and wrong -- when someone you trust starts abusing you at age 6, by the time you are 12 you are a mess. You make a conscious decision not to tell. Eventually the truth comes out, and you feel horrible guilt over not telling. So a .0001% responsibility for what happened becomes several orders of magnitude greater. It's awful. I wish I knew nothing about this.

I am struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.

[thesaint258]

Bishops are supposed to refer people to professional counselors in such cases. Fast offering funds are available to pay for this. Our bishop does it all the time.

I hope people don't get too wrapped up in my use of the word "complicit." And wuap, you know me too well even to suggest I am advocating blaming the victim. Please.

Example: An adult abuser terrorizes a child into not telling. Kids almost never tell. And yet they will grow up hearing people teach them they should tell. They are also terribly confused about what is right and wrong -- when someone you trust starts abusing you at age 6, by the time you are 12 you are a mess. You make a conscious decision not to tell. Eventually the truth comes out, and you feel horrible guilt over not telling. So a .0001% responsibility for what happened becomes several orders of magnitude greater. It's awful. I wish I knew nothing about this.

When I read "complicit," I thought of something kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. Being in such circumstances over time will mess with a person's mind in ways that I can't even imagine, and it's certainly not the fault of the victim. It's more evidence of the extreme stress and degradation the victim has endured.

[LA Ute]

I am struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.

I am struggling to understand why I even got involved in a thread where I'm unwilling to join 100% in criticism of an apostle's statement.

My larger point is that there are cases in which victims feel horrible guilt and struggle with feelings that the Atonement cannot help them. I think Elder Scott was talking to those people. I know that some heard him. I think some here are going way overboard in parsing one sentence in his talk.

[LA Ute]

When I read "complicit," I thought of something kind of like Stockholm Syndrome. Being in such circumstances over time will mess with a person's mind in ways that I can't even imagine, and it's certainly not the fault of the victim. It's more evidence of the extreme stress and degradation the victim has endured.

Yes.

EDIT: I need to clarify what I meant below by the word "complicit." I mean superficially complicit. In other words, complicity in the mind of the victim, who may know that what is happening is wrong and that it should be reported, but doesn't report it. Anyone who knows the whole story would never say that the victim is really complicit or that he/she was wrong for not telling, but it's often hard for the victim to see that. That's why it is a terrible burden for such people.

[SoCalCoug]

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

That is, indeed, the gist of the quotes we've been arguing over. And here's the problem I have with that mentality: a girl gets raped, but she is still alive. Because she is alive, she may feel she did not struggle hard enough to avoid the rape. Therefore, she is unreasonably and unjustifiably guilt-ridden over having been raped, believing she wasn't strong enough to resist.

You seem to agree with the quotes at issue, or at least argue they mean something different than what they say.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am struggling to understand why I even got involved in a thread where I'm unwilling to join 100% in criticism of an apostle's statement.

My larger point is that there are cases in which victims feel horrible guilt and struggle with feelings that the Atonement cannot help them. I think Elder Scott was talking to those people. I know that some
heard him. I think some here are going way overboard in parsing one sentence in his talk.

Oh brother.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am struggling to understand why I even got involved in a thread where I'm unwilling to join 100% in criticism of an apostle's statement.
.

The LDS tendencies regarding idol worship would make the Hebrews blush.

[LA Ute]

Oh brother.

My admittedly snarky comment was based on long experience here. Lots of CSers who post in the Foyer have difficulty giving GAs the benefit of the doubt. Disagree with me on that if you wish.

Look, anyone who says this is not a subject full of tragedy, evil, shame and nuance doesn't know what he or she is talking about. We are talking about individual situations where different people make different decisions with varying levels of capacity to make decisions. Only God can judge. I read Elder Scott as saying, "If you feel some responsibility for what happened to you, talk to a priesthood leader and work it through. If you did have any responsibility, you can be forgiven." A lot of people need to hear that and believe it. To say that he was wrong to make that statement and that in no circumstances does a victim ever have any responsibility for what happened is unsupportable, IMO. These cases are incredibly complex, as far as I know.

I'm only talking about Elder Scott's quote in this thread, not about the rape comments here. I haven't even read those.

[Eddie]

Wow - looks like I stepped away at the wrong time (or maybe the right time?)

I agree with those who say that they would rather have a daughter returned alive and abused than dead. I'd also rather have any of my children returned to me alive and in need of repenting than dead. I understand the idea of fighting against a would be abuser/rapist.

I find myself curious on the Elizabeth Smart issue. I'm sure that plenty of abductors tell their victim that they will harm their family if they run - so that isn't anything new or exciting to report. But LDS teachings about loss of worth? Now that is something to report! But I'd like to ask Elizabeth some time - if she had to rank the things that kept her from running, which had the most effect? Threats against her family? Or the fact that she considered herself unworthy?

On to the RGS quotes. All I can say is wow. I wanted to make a joke about perhaps he was referring to the sadomasochists who were begging for it to take place, but that seemed inappropriate. But the thought did occur to me that there has probably been more than one incident of things getting hot and heavy between a couple...maybe the gal even agreed with the concept of "oral is moral" and was happy to oblige...but then things went beyond that, things that she didn't consent to and even tried to stop. And maybe the victim in that case does have reason to repent - not for the date rape itself, but for some things that led up to it. That's the only thing I can think of that makes Elder Scott's comments even somewhat reasonable.

I've worked with quite a few victims. I've also spoken with more than my share of perpetrators. It is pretty common for perpetrators to tell the victims, especially young children, that what they did was wrong. Sometimes they tell the victim it is their fault and that some action they did led to the perpetrator's actions. Often they tell the victim that they will be in trouble if they tell anyone. And by FAR - most perpetrators are known to the victims. Most are family. So they are someone who is believed, trusted, etc. And who's going to believe a kid when an adult tells a different story as to who's fault it is? Remember - kids with their egocentric thought processes are more than happy to accept responsibility. These generalizations are true not just among the LDS population - but nationwide. The LDS church struggles with issues that are issues everywhere.

I would agree that the LDS church doesn't do a good job in discussing sex. So much of the focus is on avoiding it until married, that for many the relationship remains unhealthy after marriage.

And I guess the one good takeaway from all of this is that I know what my FHE lesson will be about next Monday.

Finally - my other takeaway is that regardless of how things have been interpreted in the past, I think we are all on the same page now. I don't think anyone here believes it is truly the victims fault when abuse/rape takes place. We may have differing ideas as to how hard someone should fight off an attacker - but I don't think anyone here believes that a person would be better off dead than as a victim.

[Indy Coug]

The LDS tendencies regarding idol worship would make the Hebrews blush.

Oh brother.