Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Indy Coug]

Blame the victim??


NO!

[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!

[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.

[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.)

[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!!