Elizabeth Smart back in SLC again

[_asbestosman]

I would hope any victoms never come across them in case they are damaged because of them.

I would hope that victims would consider all his words in context and realize that they cannot possibly share the blame for that which they did not choose--being abused.

[_asbestosman]

I find being skeptical is most times useful.

Hmm, I'm skeptical of that.

[_Quasimodo]

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.

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.

These parts of the quote are what has me wondering. It seems to say that if you feel you have some responsibility for your abuse, you can be forgiven.

Given that people often falsely feel guilt about their abuse, I think it might be emotionally damaging for those people to seek atonement for sins that they did not commit. This doesn't heal the wound, it makes it deeper.

To bring this back to the topic, did someone counsel Elizabeth Smart, upon her rescue, that God forgives her for not trying to escape when she had a chance? Thereby confirming a guilt she must have felt even though she truly was blameless.

[_sock puppet]

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.

In my opinion, bishops have no role in the abuse situation. Not as confessors, not as judges. Abuse is a crime. If one ward member was caught burglarizing the home of another ward member, would the bishop be involved? Would he, along Elder Scott's line of reasoning, suggest to the member whose home was burgled that he explore the degree to which that homeowner is responsible for the burglary? I'd bet not. Does god cause the homeowner to feel guilt because maybe they'd previously invited the burglar into their home as a dinner guest, where he saw their new flat screen TV that was taken in the burglary? No.

But when someone abuses someone else, physically, sexually, and/or emotionally, why might the Brethren think god would cause that victim to feel guilt? Maybe because the Brethren have dealt with so many situations where the perp of the abuse is in a role of authority, and the Church is so invested in hierarchy and authority, the Brethren sympathize with the perp more than would be the case outside such a highly-structured bureaucratic organization.

Maybe it is because the Brethren are themselves hoisted on such petards of respect and authority that they naturally empathize with the abusing perp who was, vis-a-vis the victim, in the position of authority. So far removed from the subordinate, the weak, and the vulnerable, the Brethren assume in the abuse situation that there must have been some complicity for which god will cause the victim to feel guilt.

If anything, I think Elder Scott's remarks just point out how out of touch with reality the Brethren are. Not being snarky, maybe it is better if they limit themselves to dictating how many earrings people ought to wear per ear. At least that advice is pretty harmless.

What amazes me is how deluded the Church is about the effect of 'repentance'. Why when a scout leader has abused young scouts do they let him return to being a scout leader after he has 'repented'? You don't put somebody with a proven proclivity back in the 'candy store'.

[_sock puppet]

I find being skeptical is most times useful.

Hmm, I'm skeptical of that.

Good use of skepticism. That's why I couldn't quite say skeptical is useful all the time. Must leave some room to be skeptical of being too skeptical.

[_Themis]

I would hope any victoms never come across them in case they are damaged because of them.

I would hope that victims would consider all his words in context and realize that they cannot possibly share the blame for that which they did not choose--being abused.

that's the problem though. His words are not written well, so they can easily get the idea from it that they may be responsible for some of the abuse. This is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. It's bad enough that many victims will do this without reading his words. Part of the problem when leaders lack proper training.

[_asbestosman]

If a young woman falls for her teacher and tries to get him in bed with her and he's dumb enough to agree, then she is the victim of a crime of abuse. The adult should know better. Period. No exception. She is not responsible for being abused. She's just a foolish young girl.

But if that same woman falls for a boy her age and tries to get him in bed with her, she isn't a victim--she's a sinner.

Now, why is it that the former is not a sin at all while the latter is? I recognize that such is the case, but I'm curious about what other think. I will share my thoughts on this afterwards.

[_Quasimodo]

If a young woman falls for her teacher and tries to get him in bed with her and he's dumb enough to agree, then she is the victim of a crime of abuse. The adult should know better. Period. No exception. She is not responsible for being abused. She's just a foolish young girl.

But if that same woman falls for a boy her age and tries to get him in bed with her, she isn't a victim--she's a sinner.

Now, why is it that the former is not a sin at all while the latter is? I recognize that such is the case, but I'm curious about what other think. I will share my thoughts on this afterwards.

Age on the part of all participants. In the first case, the young girl is reacting to normal urges and so is the teacher. The difference is that the teacher is an adult and should be acting in the best interests of his student. That is his charge as a teacher and he should (and does) know better. The girl is an adolescent and has a few years to go before she can make adult judgments.

In the second case, both are adolescents and do not yet have the judgement to make more responsible choices.

Sin is a different matter. Sin is subjective depending on ones religious beliefs. I'll leave the matter of sin to others.

[_hatersinmyward]

its good to see 'ed' putting an end to things.

ed is the kind of man who i'd like to see run for mayor of salt lake city or possibly even governor of this great state. i do believe he has earned that inheritance.

go ed make this state proud.

[Guest]

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?

that scenario would depend on age, knowledge and?or intelligence of the victim.


in stockholm syndrome the captor uses symptoms of the trauma against the victim. the captor will say if you make the symptoms of the trauma go away you wont have any problems. if the victim finds out the symptoms are being used against them they will probably try and fight but if the captor says you are wrong about that too or if the noose is too tight or there is sympathy then the person wont leave.