Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[All-American]

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.

Sorry, no, that's just not what they are saying. And reading over the article, it's not what she was saying, either.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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 need a straw man smiley.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

Well said, Eddie.

[Indy Coug]

We need a straw man smiley.

Agreed. You can start by slapping one or 10 on this one:

No kidding. It's absurd that these young girls don't know the etymology of these words. Absurd!.

[Jeff Lebowski]

After all these years, Indy still doesn't know the difference between a straw man and sarcasm. Weird.

[Harry Tic]

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.

[Indy Coug]

After all these years, Indy still doesn't know the difference between a straw man and sarcasm. Weird.

Nice try.

[Pelado]

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.

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

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

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.

[Bruiserstone]

Not to get off subject, but its times like these where you can see it would be very beneficial to have some female voices in the room. I am talking about in the leadership of the church.

[Indy Coug]

Not to get off subject, but its times like these where you can see it would be very beneficial to have some female voices in the room. I am talking about in the leadership of the church.

They already do.

[Danimal]

I work closely with victims of sexual assault. Generally they experience enormous amounts of shame and feel an irrational sense of responsibility for what happened. They get stuck in these beliefs and it is very difficult for them to change their views. They tend to ignore evidence against their beliefs and are vigilant for even small things that confirm these beliefs - as irrational and unhelpful they may be. Unfortunately the quotes from GAs like JL quoted only serve to deepen and strengthen these harmful beliefs that keep them from improving. We can parse and analyze all we want but a victim of abuse most likely interprets these in a way that reinforces their underlying harmful beliefs. It also makes the work of the mental health provider much more difficult as it pits church vs provider an the church usually wins.

[Jarid in Cedar]

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."

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."

Talk to the overwhelming majority of sex abuse victims. This is the message that they need to hear. Not: " If you feel responsible, come discuss it with your bishop so we can ascertain whether you are indeed partially responsible and help you with the repentance process for your role in these events"

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.

No, they are not very complex. A child or adolescent was violated by someone older, usually someone they know or trust. As for the number of victims who have responsibility in their abuse, what would you put that percentage at? 1%? 0.1%? 0.0001%? If this is the group that Scott is addressing, talk about straining at the gnats.

[Indy Coug]

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.

[Bruiserstone]

They already do.

Come on Indy, you know what I mean. Yes, there are women in leadership positions and on boards within the church, but there is no woman put in position over man in the church. For pete's sake, we finally let a woman pray in general conference for the first time. In the end when decisions are made you have 15 men in that room.

[ERCougar]

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.

Please tell me which psychology expert from 20 years ago would have advised sexual abuse victims to consider what role they played in the abuse. "Thanks in advance".

OTOH, if you're saying that the Church tends to be twenty years behind on these issues, and he was likely citing the same experts from 20 years earlier that called homosexuality a disorder, then yes, I agree. Pity that God doesn't keep them up to date.