Elizabeth Smart back in SLC again

[_Infymus]

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?

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

Scott is a supreme asshole. The victim is ALWAYS innocent. The victim is NEVER, EVER. Let me repeat that, NEVER, EVER responsible in ANY degree for the abuse. Scott can go “F” himself. Let him experience even a quarter of what Elizabeth suffered – or what I suffered, and then live his own words.

Stupid sheltered geriatric old Mormons.

[_sock puppet]

Ed Smart has always trotted his daughter out in front of the media. He has continually reinforced into Elizabeth's head that nothing is wrong, all is well, all is forgiven.

And you say that like it's a bad thing. What, if anything, could Ed Smart have done that would win your approval?

How about Ed, once he got his daughter home, shut up and get rid of the public limelight. If he wanted his daughter to heal, and have as normal an existence as possible after her return, he would have shielded her from the public spotlight, not trotted her out to parrot what he wanted, when he wanted.

Tell us, Infymus: what sort of message should he have "continually reinforced into Elizabeth's head?" That she's damaged, or something?

Uh, let's see, Pahoran. Do you think that she was on Larry King Live because she was just another 16 year old kid? Hell, no. She was on because she'd been abducted and put through hell, and daddy wanted her to answer questions that would dredge all that back up, so that daddy could keep the spotlight going as long as he could. The message Ed Smart kept sending his daughter was that she was worth his exploitation now that BDM was done misusing her and thus damaged.

Why don't you just come out and admit that if it wasn't for the fact that he's a Mormon, you'd find his support for his daughter to be a good thing?

Why don't you, Pahoran, come out and admit that you'd be appalled at Ed Smart's exploitation of his daughter since her return, but for the fact he's a 'good-brother' Mormon?

[_asbestosman]

If a girl consents to a sexual act, that has nothing to do with being victimized later. Let's say she consented to oral sex, but then was sodomized against her will. Her consent and later victimization are two separate issues. She is not responsible for being sodomized, even if you think the oral sex was sinful. She is not responsible for the sodomy. Two seperate issues.

That's what I said. I don't know why you missed that. The point is that since they are separate issues, the fact that she was the victim of one does not absolve her of guilt in the other.

That's not really any different from blaming a rape victim for wearing a skimpy outfit.

It's completely different. Wearing a skimpy outfit does not cause one to be raped and cannot in any rational sense be said to be the reason for the rape (not the least of which is that "skimpy" depends too much on subjective cultural factors). I tried to make that clear, but apparently you only see what you want to see.

Remember, when Pahoran showed the quote in context, he made it clear that Elder Scott understood and emphasized that most victims are paralyzed by fear and victims are in no way responsible for being victimized. Looking at the context, I think it's apparent that Elder Scott is referring to a scenario more like the one I painted (consisting of two separate issues which are nevertheless likely to be conflated in many minds--perhaps especially one that has experienced great distress).

[_Buffalo]

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?

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

Scott is a supreme asshole. The victim is ALWAYS innocent. The victim is NEVER, EVER. Let me repeat that, NEVER, EVER responsible in ANY degree for the abuse. Scott can go f*** himself. Let him experience even a quarter of what Elizabeth suffered – or what I suffered, and then live his own words.

Stupid sheltered geriatric old Mormons.

Plus 1. If there were a hell, Elder Scott would be eternally pricked in the bottom by Satan's toasting fork forever for that statement alone. Imagine what an LDS victim of rape would feel after reading that. The self-doubt, the shame, the depression and misery it would bring on.

[_asbestosman]

Plus 1. If there were a hell, Elder Scott would be eternally pricked in the bottom by Satan's toasting fork forever for that statement alone. Imagine what an LDS victim of rape would feel after reading that. The self-doubt, the shame, the depression and misery it would bring on.

The key words I saw from Elder Scott were "against your will".

It's always against the will of a victim of rape. Duh. Case closed.

[_Buffalo]

If a girl consents to a sexual act, that has nothing to do with being victimized later. Let's say she consented to oral sex, but then was sodomized against her will. Her consent and later victimization are two separate issues. She is not responsible for being sodomized, even if you think the oral sex was sinful. She is not responsible for the sodomy. Two seperate issues.

That's what I said. I don't know why you missed that. The point is that since they are separate issues, the fact that she was the victim of one does not absolve her of guilt in the other.

That's not really any different from blaming a rape victim for wearing a skimpy outfit.

It's completely different. Wearing a skimpy outfit does not cause one to be raped and cannot in any rational sense be said to be the reason for the rape (not the least of which is that "skimpy" depends too much on subjective cultural factors). I tried to make that clear, but apparently you only see what you want to see.

Remember, when Pahoran showed the quote in context, he made it clear that Elder Scott understood and emphasized that most victims are paralyzed by fear and victims are in no way responsible for being victimized. Looking at the context, I think it's apparent that Elder Scott is referring to a scenario more like the one I painted (consisting of two separate issues which are nevertheless likely to be conflated in many minds--perhaps especially one that has experienced great distress).

Elder Scott was talking about assigning the victim a portion of the blame for their own victimization. How does that work again?

[_Buffalo]

Plus 1. If there were a hell, Elder Scott would be eternally pricked in the bottom by Satan's toasting fork forever for that statement alone. Imagine what an LDS victim of rape would feel after reading that. The self-doubt, the shame, the depression and misery it would bring on.

The key words I saw from Elder Scott were "against your will".

It's always against the will of a victim of rape. Duh. Case closed.

So what value does bringing up the possibility of a victim's guilt for her own trauma add here? Where does this apply? What does this accomplish other than to traumatize victims of rape and abuse? Instead of healing scars of abuse, Scott is opening them up again here. “F” that guy. Seriously.

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.

[_asbestosman]

Elder Scott was talking about assigning the victim a portion of the blame for their own victimization.

For being raped? I don't think so. Yes, I read the quoted words "to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse", but I think he's conflating scenarios especially given that he clearly understands that fear will paralyze people and that you have no blame for anything that happens against your will. So if you have no blame for that which happens against your will, how on earth can a victim share in the blame? How indeed unless it's because of a scenario like the one I mentioned?

Or do you really think that wearing skimpy clothing is punished in the church the same as voluntarily choosing to have sexual relationships and no rape involved (note the voluntary part because Elder Scott made it clear that blame can only be had for voluntary contributions)? For consistency's sake, the act, not the result, would have to be punished equally, right?

[_asbestosman]

So what value does bringing up the possibility of a victim's guilt for her own trauma add here? Where does this apply? What does this accomplish other than to traumatize victims of rape and abuse? Instead of healing scars of abuse, Scott is opening them up again here.

It doesn't apply to the trauma. It applies for what she consented to before-hand and was accepted consensually. Is that really so hard to understand?

[_stemelbow]

The main point I take away from this thread is that Pahoran (and others, including you) are mistaken in the assertion that members of this board will tolerate any language used against the LDS Church, but only get their knickers in a twist when it is Will Schryver at fault.

This thread effectively refutes that notion.

Case closed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What are you talking about? I have not said said that everyone on this forum will tolerate any language used against the Church. But this thread does effectively refute any notion that some critics here won't go to silly extremes to complain about the Church.