Elizabeth Smart back in SLC again

[_asbestosman]

One issue I see is wanting to protect victims. This is a good thing in general of course. I think this desire extents to the point that it's better to protect the victim from further harm (from blame) by simply not bringing up the issue of sin at all--especially when sin is seen as a largely imaginary threat. By telling a person that she is accountable for sin, one runs the danger of having her think that being abused was her fault. Even though one can try pointing out the logical errors with that line of thinking, it will probably not help in the case of trauma. Does logic cure you of your fears? Of the two dangers--the disputed danger of sin and the certain danger of blaming the victim, which danger has a stronger need of protection?

When two kids of the same age fool around, there is still the chance for hurt and damage. However, there isn't anyone who should know better or be an adult. They both share equal blame. When a child and an adult get together, the adult knows better. In fact, we as a society specifically place trust in (or at least expectations on since I'm not sure we really trust much anymore) adults we do not place in children. When an adult violates that trust, he has done something which two kids fooling around have not done and in fact cannot do. Two kids fooling around are doing something foolish which may not be in their best interest and may not choose to do if they truly understood potential consequences. However, the potential for manipulative abuse (though nonzero) is much less and their ability to discern is also much less.

While theoretically the young girl could also be a sinner in the first scenario with a teacher, it would be dangerous to tell her so because she is likely to internalize it as though all the hurt she fells from the affair was her fault when the reality is that the adult should have acted better and proved himself trustworthy. One cannot be blamed for what one is not prepared to comprehend.

Which bring up another interesting point. We as a society believe that the age of accountability has a big mark at 18 (and some at 25), but still see some shades of gray. Mormons see a big mark at 8, but also see some shades of gray. The question is then brought up: how much can one comprehend about the nature and consequences of sexual intimacy at various ages? But it doesn't matter for a discussion on victims. What we do know is that dangers exist and blaming the victim is the wrong thing to do.

[_Pahoran]

Sorry, there is no context that saves that vile, filthy statement. Blaming the victim is something only sick person would do.

He didn't "blame the victim."

And since he made no "vile, filthy statement," the vileness and filth is in the eye of the beholder.

And considering who the beholder is, that's hardly surprising.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

As I have already pointed out: contrary to the evidence-free speculation that passes for discussion around here, I don't have a "ban hammer" anywhere.

Pissy pissy. Were these your forums, you'd ban and you know it.

I "know" no such thing, and neither do you.

I have never banned anyone from anywhere, having neither the ability nor the ambition to do such a thing.

The fact is that Infymus' cynical and dishonest quote mining intentionally misrepresents what Elder Scott was saying. Well, I'm sure he and Buffalo will drink to that.

Cynical and dishonest? Like Richard G. Scott is, right?

No. Like you are.

He wrote:

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.

The victim in this case was a teenage girl. For me, it was a child between the ages of 1-14.

Were you?

I'm sorry to hear that. And yes, I really do mean that.

However, that doesn't give you any special immunity.

Two cases do not exhaust the universe of abuse. Oddly enough, other people besides you have been abused. His talk was not about you. It wasn't even only about children. It was about people who experience abuse at any stage of their lives, including as competent adults.

Most Often? Really??? MOST often the victim is innocent?

No need to shriek, Infymus. Yes, most often that is the case.

Scott is a supreme asshole.

Elder Scott can listen to opinions different than his own without exploding with rage.

Hence, he is better than you are.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Infymus]

Elder Scott can listen to opinions different than his own without exploding with rage.

Hence, he is better than you are.

Regards,
Pahoran

Right. Your logic is sound.

I should have done it this way:



Hold up a book, lie about the book, shake the book at everyone. He's such a better man.

[_Buffalo]

Elder Scott can listen to opinions different than his own without exploding with rage.

Hence, he is better than you are.

Regards,
Pahoran

Elder Scott should not be allowed within 500 yards of any rape victim, or within 500 yards of a microphone. Other than that, he seems like an okay guy.