Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[All-American]

Good grief, wuap, nobody needs that.

[UVACoug]

And who is playing the intellectual asshole now?

I have no problem being an asshole to you. You ask for it continually. If you actually bothered to consider anything I have said, things would be different. But you don't ... so

[UVACoug]

Sigh, indeed:



What does the victim need to be forgiven for?

Everyone needs to be forgiven.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't read minds ... I read English (something you seem to struggle with).

And who is playing the intellectual asshole now?

[Jarid in Cedar]

No he isn't. There is absolutely nothing in that talk that suggests that at all. Sigh.

Sigh, indeed:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1–4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

What does the victim need to be forgiven for?

[wuapinmon]

I read English (something you seem to struggle with).

Do you really want to go there, little man?

[CardiacCoug]

Please show me the person who "struggled to their death" because of Elder Scott's talk.

[UVACoug]

Tell me how that mind reading class is going for you as that is the only way you would understand what he really meant to say. Us mere mortals are only left to interpret the exact words that he spoke.

I don't read minds ... I read English (something you seem to struggle with).

[UVACoug]

Wrong, he is talking about victims who sinned in the act of becoming a victim. So what sin exactly do they need to repent for? I don't know why it is so difficult for you to admit that RGS totally fucked up with that statement.

No he isn't. There is absolutely nothing in that talk that suggests that at all. Sigh.

[LA Ute]

This is a very complex subject and generalizations are a mistake, I think. In cases of long-term abuse the victim often begins to participate in a manner that might seem to him or her (or to the uneducated observer) voluntary. Also, the abuse can feel pleasurable -- a normal physical reaction. (Some victims of anal rape suffer horrible guilt feelings over this.) A lot of therapy for victims is to help them get over their feelings of guilt for acts and related feelings resulting from their submission -- which wasn't really voluntary at all. It is one of the most heartbreaking results of sexual abuse of the powerless. "Should I have fought back? Was I evil to have felt pleasure?" Those are the types of questions that haunt victims. It is horrible.

[UVACoug]

Sure, so one apologetic and very charitable explanation here is that abuse victims feel guilt -- they feel such a high degree of guilt that it essentially amounts to knowing deep down that they have sinned, and if Church leaders help them repent then those horrible guilty feelings will be alleviated.

I still think that's totally wrong and that abuse victims should just be told that they don't have any need to repent.

I just don't understand how you can read what he said and believe he meant that rape victims are guilty and need to repent. That is about as uncharitable a reading of that paragraph as you can possibly have. In your attempt not to be an "apologist", you go to the other extreme. Such a teaching is completely contradictory to everything the Church teaches about agency and sin and everything I have ever heard Elder Scott teach (or anyone else for that matter).

That "teaching" is clearly an outlier in every way. Which says that (1) it doesn't mean what you claim, (2) Elder Scott is an idiot, or (3) Elder Scott was possessed by the devil for a few minutes.

Which is the most likely? I know you think it makes you feel intelligent to claim I am an apologist, but your interpretation comes off just as absurd to me as you are claiming mine comes off to you. And you have already made clear that you don't like the Church's teaching on chastity, which doesn't really make you any less biased than I am.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Agree completely. It would have been better to leave it for another time. That doesn't mean that he meant something he didn't mean though.

Tell me how that mind reading class is going for you as that is the only way you would understand what he really meant to say. Us mere mortals are only left to interpret the exact words that he spoke.

[Jarid in Cedar]

He wasn't talking about repenting for being a victim. Geez. He was talking about victims who HAVE sinned. I don't know why this is so difficult for you?

Wrong, he is talking about victims who sinned in the act of becoming a victim. So what sin exactly do they need to repent for? I don't know why it is so difficult for you to admit that RGS totally fucked up with that statement.

[CardiacCoug]

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.

Sure, so one apologetic and very charitable explanation here is that abuse victims feel guilt -- they feel such a high degree of guilt that it essentially amounts to knowing deep down that they have sinned, and if Church leaders help them repent then those horrible guilty feelings will be alleviated.

I still think that's totally wrong and that abuse victims should just be told that they don't have any need to repent.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Now you are just making things up.

Really?

As a victim, do not waste effort in revenge or retribution against your aggressor. Focus on your responsibility to do what is in your power to correct. Leave the handling of the offender to civil and Church authorities. Whatever they do, eventually the guilty will face the Perfect Judge. Ultimately the unrepentant abuser will be punished by a just God. The purveyors of filth and harmful substances who knowingly incite others to acts of violence and depravation and those who promote a climate of permissiveness and corruption will be sentenced. Predators who victimize the innocent and justify their own corrupted life by enticing others to adopt their depraved ways will be held accountable. Of such the Master warned:

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6.)