Buffalo wrote: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?
He left it open ended - open enough to damage any rape victim who has the misfortune of reading it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: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?
That's not what he wrote - he was talking about assigning blame to the victim for being victimized. Any other sins are unrelated.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
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.
I guess I'm confused, once again. What would constitute "a degree of responsibility for abuse"? Suggestive clothing? Make up? Just being attractive? Walking down the wrong street at night?
Often, people that have been abused feel some guilt because of what has happened to them. A normal, human reaction to abuse (even rape). Does God require atonement for this feeling?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
he was talking about assigning blame to the victim for being victimized.
But he said they can only be blamed for that which they chose. They didn't choose to be abused, so his sentence makes no sense when read that way.
Quasimodo wrote:I guess I'm confused, once again. What would constitute "a degree of responsibility for abuse"? Suggestive clothing? Make up? Just being attractive? Walking down the wrong street at night?
That's just it, none of those things make one bear any responsibility for abuse. If the church doesn't discipline those who do those things but are not abused, it should not (and does not) discipline those who do such but are victimized. The victimization is clearly not the choice. Some actions may be foolish, but that does not make one responsible for abuse. It makes you responsible for stupidity in equal proportion to one who was stupid but more fortunate.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
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.
I guess I'm confused, once again. What would constitute "a degree of responsibility for abuse"? Suggestive clothing? Make up? Just being attractive? Walking down the wrong street at night?
Often, people that have been abused feel some guilt because of what has happened to them. A normal, human reaction to abuse (even rape). Does God require atonement for this feeling?
Apparently he does, if you're Mormon. I've heard several stories of children of abuse going to their Bishop to try to get help, and being called to repentance, called to be forgiving, called to be more obedient, etc.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I've heard several stories of children of abuse going to their Bishop to try to get help, and being called to repentance, called to be forgiving, called to be more obedient, etc.
Verifiable? If true, it's disturbing.
Fortunately, I have my doubts. Being skeptical is useful sometimes.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Buffalo wrote:I've heard several stories of children of abuse going to their Bishop to try to get help, and being called to repentance, called to be forgiving, called to be more obedient, etc.
Verifiable? If true, it's disturbing.
Fortunately, I have my doubts. Being skeptical is useful sometimes.
Most recent was here. I'm not sure how you'd verify something like that, but this woman is a faithful, active, believing member:
Bishops probably do need better instruction on how to handle cases of abuse, but I don't know what they currently receive. Maybe this one ignored guidance?
I see nothing wrong with calling for forgiveness when done in the right context. The abuser needs to be brought to justice despite forgiveness (for various reasons). However, forgiveness can help one the forgiver to find personal healing. Yet reaching the point where that is possible is difficult.
Calling someone to be more obedient also has it's place, but the problem is that people in many stressful situations (abuse isn't the only one) may have more difficulty doing this, and repeated calls to obedience will likely only serve towards more frustration. God isn't going to withhold His aide because you're not perfect.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Buffalo wrote:I've heard several stories of children of abuse going to their Bishop to try to get help, and being called to repentance, called to be forgiving, called to be more obedient, etc.
Verifiable? If true, it's disturbing.
Fortunately, I have my doubts. Being skeptical is useful sometimes.