Are Patriarchal Blessings Valid

[MJNSW]

In Elder Scott's defense, he also said in the same talk: "I solemnly testify that when anotherâ??s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

Can the two statements be reconciled?

I understand Elder Scott's statement. As an abuse survivor - it is hard not to blame yourself... regardless of age or circumstance. If that is the case, then it is important that you learn to forgive yourself so you can move forward. Or better worded "Learn to recognize what the real problem was and that it was not your fault." This is a very typical problem that victims have - and I believe that Elder Scott was simply trying to help them find a way to move out of that oppressing feeling or wrong thinking of they were wrong somehow. Simply learning to forgive themselves.

[Kenngo1969]

But if a girl is only told about fathers being good and right and has no idea that they may be bad and wrong, it's a problem.

Part of what we, as fathers and potential fathers, are taughtâ??along with our female counterpartsâ??is to recognize when we have treated our children badly, to acknowledge it, and to apologize for it. If a child has â??no ideaâ? that his or her parents â??may be bad and wrong,â? that family is as equally dysfunctional as one in which the parents seemingly are nothing but â??bad and wrong.â?

Perhaps you can decipher this statement for me: "At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse." - Richard G. Scott

I donâ??t think anyone ought to enable abuseâ??even, and perhaps especially, victims. If one is enabling abuse to any degreeâ??that is, is aware it is wrong, has some power, however limited, to stop it, yet fails to do soâ??one should not do that. You canâ??t have it both ways: you say victims should be taught to stand up for themselves to stop this horrendous treatment, yet you think Elder Scott should treat all abuse victims as completely helpless and defenseless. That doesnâ??t seem consistent.

â?¦ if you think that the standards for men and women are the same in the Church in general, I'm very surprised.

Then you must be easilyâ??and oftenâ??surprised, by a lot of things. (Given what youâ??ve seen of abuse, I find that â?¦ surprising â?¦ but, to each, his or her own).

â?¦ my father, on the other hand, would never abuse his children in any way â?¦

Except allowing them to be abused by their mother.

I feel that the Church is contributing to the problem merely by glorifying patriarchy, or dominion of one person over the other.

But the Church of Jesus Christ doesnâ??t â??glorify patriarchyâ?â??at least, not to such an extent that women are relegated to second-class status, either here or in the eternities. Different may mean better to you, but thatâ??s certainly not the case with God.

â?¦ The parents merely represent the children and their interests until the children are able to do so themselves. â?¦

Iâ??m not yet a father; Iâ??m not yet an attorney. But what youâ??re describing sounds less like a father-child relationship and more like an attorney-client relationship. If-and-when I do become an attorney and a father, as much as I might care for my clients and care about their interests, I canâ??t ever imagine having the sort of relationship with my clients that I'll have with my children; my love for my children will demand that I do much more for them than â??represent [them] and their interests.â?

For some reason it seems to me that it's not how most people view the relationship between underage children and their parents, which is a pity, IMHO.

Maybe because thatâ??s not a healthy way to view the vast majority of parent-child relationships?

[Kenngo1969]

You stated â??The Church is why the priesthood existsâ? â?? Iâ??m not nit-picking here â?? I just see it as the complete opposite. The priesthood is why the church exists.

Further reflection has caused me to reconsider that statement. The priesthood could function perfectly fine independent of the institutional church (that is, if the institutional church did not exist). But if the institutional church did not exist, the priesthood would function in families, and families would not exist without both a father and a mother.

My concern is with the victim. The Lord can judge the unworthy priesthood holder. I canâ??t. The Lord can heal the victim and we can help. If 38 % of girls under 18 are sexually abused â?? letâ??s turn it around â?? there are 38%+ LDS priesthood holders who have lost their authority â?? yet are still holding their callings.

Yes, sexual abuse is horrendous. No, thereâ??s no excuse for it. Yes, even one victim of such abuse is too many. But I have a problem with your 38% figure. And even if it is an accurate ratio of the incidence of sexual abuse in society at large, I have a problem with you plucking it from the â??society-at-largeâ? context and arguing that it is an accurate ratio of the incidence of sexual abuse among a tiny subset of that larger group (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and how about an even smaller subset still? What about active, priesthood-holding, temple-worthy members of the Church of Jesus Christ?). I only know enough about statistics to know that such an approach is suspect (to say the least). Iâ??ll leave it to the more statistically erudite among us to explain why.

[Kenngo1969]

Is it the victim's responsibility to make the abuse stop? No, it's the abuser's responsibility.

Agreed. Weâ??re off to a good start! This looks promising!

On the other hand, is it the Church's responsibility to make the abuse stop or to prevent abuse from occurring? It appears that they assumed that responsibility when they took upon themselves a mission of perfecting the Saints.

Uh-oh! It feels like we just did a â??180,â? and Iâ??m getting a little queasy, here! It seems like you want to switch between the â??stopping-abuse-is-the-Churchâ??s â??responsibilityâ? and the â??stopping-abuse-is-the-abuserâ??s-responsibilityâ? horses, depending on which one will get you the farthest at any point in the discussion. Iâ??m confused. Can you reconcile those two statements for me?

[cartoon bluejay]

I have a problem with you plucking it from the â??society-at-largeâ? context and arguing that it is an accurate ratio of the incidence of sexual abuse among a tiny subset of that larger group (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and how about an even smaller subset still? What about active, priesthood-holding, temple-worthy members of the Church of Jesus Christ?). I only know enough about statistics to know that such an approach is suspect (to say the least). Iâ??ll leave it to the more statistically erudite among us to explain why.

I know - it's a difficult pill to swallow - We have a higher standard within the church and it's hard to imagine that others are not living that standard. I see a higher standard but not necessarily better behaviour among LDS people. It's like people assume that temple marriages means you are more committed to your marriage, but the divorce rate among LDS members married in the temple is very close to the national rate of divorce.

You may be right that the percentage of sexual abuse is lower for members of the CoJCoLDS who are active, priesthood-holding, and temple worthy. I just know something about social issues. I also know how many women I've talked to about abuse in their home. I don't think the percentage is that much lower and remember that's the statistic for just sexual abuse - I didn't account for physical and emotional abuse.

[Kenngo1969]

[T]he divorce rate among LDS members married in the temple is very close to the national rate of divorce.

No offense, but the more I interact with you on this thread, the more Iâ??m reminded of that old saying that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Call for references?

You may be right that the percentage of sexual abuse is lower [than 38%] for members of the [Church of Jesus Christ] who are active, priesthood-holding, and temple worthy.

Not only am I right, but Iâ??d bet a yearâ??s salary on it. (Right now, unfortunately, that isnâ??t worth much ) I would also call for references as to your 38% figure for prevalence of sexual abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but if leaders are doing their dutyâ??and I believe, in the vast majority of cases, that they areâ??then such cases result in Church discipline, which is, of course, confidential.

[cartoon bluejay]

No offense, but the more I interact with you on this thread, the more Iâ??m reminded of that old saying that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Call for references?

Not only am I right, but Iâ??d bet a yearâ??s salary on it. (Right now, unfortunately, that isnâ??t worth much ) I would also call for references as to your 38% figure for prevalence of sexual abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but if leaders are doing their dutyâ??and I believe, in the vast majority of cases, that they areâ??then such cases result in Church discipline, which is, of course, confidential.

Well - I'm sure offense was intended. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. You can call me a liar or an abuser of statistics - if that makes you feel better. If you think I'm mistaken - come up with references yourself and back up your claims.

I know I've heard that divorce rates are similar (even sitting in Relief Society). I did find an article ---

http://www.mormonstoday.com/000102/N1Divorce01.shtml

It basically says that LDS divorce rates are no different than the national average. To your credit, I found another article that said it was much lower (around 6%). They did mention however that they thought this low number was attributed to temple divorces being counted and not civil divorces. Another article I found said that LDS members married in the temple were much lower than the national average but LDS members who married outside the faith had divorce rates very much above the national average.

[Kenngo1969]

Well - I'm sure offense was intended. I'm not trying to misrepresent anything. You can call me a liar or an abuser of statistics - if that makes you feel better. If you think I'm mistaken - come up with references yourself and back up your claims.

Calling the accuracy of your sources into question is not the same thing as calling you a liar. Read my post again. My argument is with your sources, not with you. As far as your call that I back up "[my] claims," no, no, Dear Bluejay, you've got that backwards. You made the claim. I called into question your sources and your claims. I'll take a look at the article you linked regarding LDS divorce rates. If you'd like to show me an article from a peer-reviewed academic/scientific/scholarly journal that says that divorce rates for active, believing, temple-worthy Latter-day Saints parallel the national average, I'll take a look at that.

You're welcome to believe that my views on the subject are ill-founded, and I doubt I'm going to change your views either. But I think you read the word "lies" and imputed malice where none was intended. Again, it's your sources I have a problem with; despite the fact that our acquaintance has been limited to cyberstpace (and realistically, that's probably not going to change) I'm willing to believe that you are as honest as the day is long until you prove to me otherwise.

I know I've heard that divorce rates are similar (even sitting in Relief Society).

Well, if you heard it in Relief Society ...

I did find an article ---

http://www.mormonstoday.com/000102/N1Divorce01.shtml

It basically says that LDS divorce rates are no different than the national average. To your credit, I found another article that said it was much lower (around 6%). They did mention however that they thought this low number was attributed to temple divorces being counted and not civil divorces.

The low number of sealing cancellations wouldn't surprise me. Insofar as I know, cancellation of a temple sealing requires First Presidency approval, and I doubt that's the easiest thing in the world to get ... for good reason, I think.

Another article I found said that LDS members married in the temple were much lower than the national average but LDS members who married outside the faith had divorce rates very much above the national average.

High divorce rates are common among interfaith couples across the board. I see no reason to believe that there would be any difference among couples in which one party is a Latter-day Saint.

[Zoidberg]

Part of what we, as fathers and potential fathers, are taughtâ??along with our female counterpartsâ??is to recognize when we have treated our children badly, to acknowledge it, and to apologize for it. If a child has â??no ideaâ? that his or her parents â??may be bad and wrong,â? that family is as equally dysfunctional as one in which the parents seemingly are nothing but â??bad and wrong.â?

That's quite right; however, families like that happen more often than you would think (such as in my case and the others in this thread). The child may have an idea that there is something wrong with what the parent is doing, but if it is not validated and everyone around admires the parent and teaches the child that his/her parents are the greatest people in the world, the child will decide that their ideas are wrong and they deserve the treatment they are receiving.

I donâ??t think anyone ought to enable abuseâ??even, and perhaps especially, victims. If one is enabling abuse to any degreeâ??that is, is aware it is wrong, has some power, however limited, to stop it, yet fails to do soâ??one should not do that. You canâ??t have it both ways: you say victims should be taught to stand up for themselves to stop this horrendous treatment, yet you think Elder Scott should treat all abuse victims as completely helpless and defenseless. That doesnâ??t seem consistent.

I don't want him to treat anyone as helpless and defenseless. You missed my point entirely. I don't want to discuss Elder Scott, since the two new threads that have been opened on the topic of this quote got closed, so I'll just say this here and then I suggest we drop this line of discussion. I'm sure he had good intentions, but I don't agree at all. Even if the interpretation you offered here is correct, I don't agree with it, either. I side with Nephi and what he said about it. I have already mentioned that the best way to make sure you are never abused by other people would be to kill them all before they attempt to; where do you draw the line for "enabling" abuse or "putting yourself in harm's way"? Let's move away from abuse and apply this "responsibility" logic to something else. Suppose a woman meets a man who has a 90% chance of dying prematurely from an incurable disease. They fall in love and she marries him despite the knowledge of the great probability of him dying prematurely. Sure enough, he dies prematurely and she is left a widow. Does this woman bear any degree of responsibility for her husband's premature death? (Mind that if she had married someone without that diagnosis, the chances of her husband's premature death would be much lower; if she never married in her lifetime, the chances of her husband's premature death would be equal to zero).

Then you must be easilyâ??and oftenâ??surprised, by a lot of things.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Church is perfectly okay with women being primary breadwinners and homemaker dads? The standards for men and women are different, the Church itself is never tired of emphasizing that.

Except allowing them to be abused by their mother.

You are making hasty judgements. They were divorced, lived far apart, he didn't know that was going on and still doesn't. I have very complicated family relationships. I only brought my situation up to add some credibility to what I'm saying here; I've also taken enough related coursework to know a few things about child abuse and neglect, as well as domestic violence in general.

But the Church of Jesus Christ doesnâ??t â??glorify patriarchyâ?â??at least, not to such an extent that women are relegated to second-class status, either here or in the eternities.

I wanted to give you a link to an article from the Ensign, but the website is down; I'll do it later.

Different may mean better to you, but thatâ??s certainly not the case with God.

You have totally lost me.

Iâ??m not yet a father; Iâ??m not yet an attorney. But what youâ??re describing sounds less like a father-child relationship and more like an attorney-client relationship. If-and-when I do become an attorney and a father, as much as I might care for my clients and care about their interests, I canâ??t ever imagine having the sort of relationship with my clients that I'll have with my children; my love for my children will demand that I do much more for them than â??represent [them] and their interests.â?

I never said you shouldn't love them; I said you are supposed to respect them as human beings and not treat them as your property. A lot of slave owners claimed to love their slaves - I just see it as an oxymoron.

Maybe because thatâ??s not a healthy way to view the vast majority of parent-child relationships?

Actually, I think it's the healthiest, the most respectful and unselfish way to view them.

Agreed. Weâ??re off to a good start! This looks promising!

Uh-oh! It feels like we just did a â??180,â? and Iâ??m getting a little queasy, here! It seems like you want to switch between the â??stopping-abuse-is-the-Churchâ??s â??responsibilityâ? and the â??stopping-abuse-is-the-abuserâ??s-responsibilityâ? horses, depending on which one will get you the farthest at any point in the discussion. Iâ??m confused. Can you reconcile those two statements for me?

I can and will. You were the one arguing a couple posts ago that the victim may bear some responsibility along with the abuser, so you are already open to the possibility that there may be more than one responsible party. My first statement is more broad; it applies to every abuser. It's a given. The second statement only applies to cases when the abuser is LDS, because of the Church's voluntarily assumed (or God-given, however you want to look at it) mission of perfecting the saints. The LDS abuser would still have the responsibility to make the abuse stop, of course.

As for the victim, being abused is neither a sin nor would you be legally prosecuted for it; the abuser is both sinning and is subject to prosecution.

[Kenngo1969]

You were the one arguing a couple posts ago that the victim may bear some responsibility along with the abuser, so you are already open to the possibility that there may be more than one responsible party.

Donâ??t try to get more mileage out of what I said than is warranted. It comes with huge caveats: if the victim knows s/heâ??s being abused or that whatâ??s happening is wrong; if s/he has the power to stop it; and if s/he fails to do so, then s/he is, to a greater or lesser extent, an enabler. But I donâ??t think enablers are â??responsibleâ? in the same sense that perpetrators are. Perpetrators are â??responsibleâ? in both the â??but-forâ? sense and in the proximate sense, while enablers are only â??responsibleâ? in the â??but-forâ? senseâ??and then only if the three huge caveats discussed at the beginning of this paragraph are in play. To boil that down to â??you are already open to the possibility that there may be more than one responsible partyâ? is an oversimplification if ever there was one.

The standards for men and women are different, the Church itself is never tired of emphasizing that.

Really? Itâ??s OK for men to kill, but not for women? Itâ??s OK for men to steal, but not for women? Itâ??s OK for men to commit adultery, but not for women? What standards are different?

Let's move away from abuse and apply this "responsibility" logic to something else. Suppose a woman meets a man who has a 90% chance of dying prematurely from an incurable disease. They fall in love and she marries him despite the knowledge of the great probability of him dying prematurely. Sure enough, he dies prematurely and she is left a widow. Does this woman bear any degree of responsibility for her husband's premature death?

No, but the two situations are an apples-to-oranges comparison. If I (1) know whatâ??s happening is abuse, and/or that itâ??s wrong; (2) have the power to stop it; and (3) do not do so, thatâ??s not the same as marrying someone who has a 90% chance of dying from an incurable disease, because I have no power to reduce the chance of that person dying from the incurable disease. Only if I were a doctor who had discovered a cure that could be implemented without an unreasonable degree of difficulty and I failed to offer that cure to my beloved (or at least to make her aware of it) would the two situations be comparable.

(Mind that if she had married someone without that diagnosis, the chances of her husband's premature death would be much lower; if she never married in her lifetime, the chances of her husband's premature death would be equal to zero).

All of which is irrelevant unless I somehow have the power to prevent my beloved from dying of the disease but fail to do so.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Church is perfectly okay with women being primary breadwinners and homemaker dads?

It depends on the circumstances of the individual family. While the Church of Jesus Christ views certain roles being fulfilled by certain genders as the ideal, its leaders are open to the possibility that there are any number of less-than-ideal circumstances that necessitate individual adaptation, and I donâ??t think anything is wrong with that.

But the Church of Jesus Christ doesnâ??t â??glorify patriarchyâ?â??at least, not to such an extent that women are relegated to second-class status, either here or in the eternities. Different may mean better to you, but thatâ??s certainly not the case with God.

You said the Church of Jesus Christ â??glorifies patriarchyâ?â??and, by extension, implied that matriarchy is afforded only second-class status. Itâ??s true that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that menâ??s and womenâ??s roles are different, but that certainly doesnâ??t mean that one gender is relegated to distant second-class status behind the other.

A lot of slave owners claimed to love their slaves - I just see it as an oxymoron.

You failed to address the comparison I brought up: â??representing oneâ??s interestsâ? sounds less like a parent-child relationship than an attorney-client relationship; I may care about my clients, but whatever I might feel for them will pale in comparison to what I feel for my children. No one suggested that attorneys should treat their clients like slaves or that parents should treat their children like slaves. Our children might see our attempts as parents to teach them responsibility might seem like slavery to them, but as a parent, you, of course, know better.

Actually, I think it's [that we, as parents, merely represent our childrenâ??s interests] the healthiest, the most respectful and unselfish way to view them.

Okey-doke. To each, his or her own, then. Iâ??m just glad Iâ??m not one of your children. (â??Mom, I need you to â??represent my interestsâ??: would it be OK if I gave fifty cents of my allowance back to you as a retainer?â? )

The second statement [that the Church is responsible for preventing abuse] only applies to cases when the abuser is LDS, because of the Church's voluntarily assumed (or God-given, however you want to look at it) mission of perfecting the saints.

That might be true â?¦ if the Church of Jesus Christ had any power to â??perfectâ? anybody; it doesnâ??t. The Church can expound, exhort, invite, persuade, attempt to motivate, and so on. (Come to think of it, the same is true of even God). Itâ??s the Saints who do the â??perfecting,â? not the â??Church.â?

[Zoidberg]

Donâ??t try to get more mileage out of what I said than is warranted. It comes with huge caveats: if the victim knows s/heâ??s being abused or that whatâ??s happening is wrong; if s/he has the power to stop it; and if s/he fails to do so, then s/he is, to a greater or lesser extent, an enabler. But I donâ??t think enablers are â??responsibleâ? in the same sense that perpetrators are. Perpetrators are â??responsibleâ? in both the â??but-forâ? sense and in the proximate sense, while enablers are only â??responsibleâ? in the â??but-forâ? senseâ??and then only if the three huge caveats discussed at the beginning of this paragraph are in play. To boil that down to â??you are already open to the possibility that there may be more than one responsible partyâ? is an oversimplification if ever there was one.

You were just so eager to jump on the seeming contradiction in my statements, complete with puking emoticons... I'm not trying to get any mileage out of what you said, I just pointed out to you that you agreed with that quote we talked about. I'll talk about enabling later.

Really? Itâ??s OK for men to kill, but not for women? Itâ??s OK for men to steal, but not for women? Itâ??s OK for men to commit adultery, but not for women? What standards are different?

Look, just read the Proclamation to the World. I've already said that I don't think that the Church is more willing to forgive the abusers of one gender over the other, yet you keep coming back to that again and again for some reason. Standards can refer to a lot of things. Like man presides, woman follows. I'll give you the link to the article I wanted to yesterday. It's called For Husbands and Helpmeets (that's telling enough already). They printed it in the Ensign in 73, in the less PC era, but the idea is still the same. http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem..._&hideNav=1.

Now, look on #3 on the list of suggestion for the wife and then try to find the reverse on the husband's list. That standard is different.

No, but the two situations are an apples-to-oranges comparison. If I (1) know whatâ??s happening is abuse, and/or that itâ??s wrong; (2) have the power to stop it; and (3) do not do so, thatâ??s not the same as marrying someone who has a 90% chance of dying from an incurable disease, because I have no power to reduce the chance of that person dying from the incurable disease. Only if I were a doctor who had discovered a cure that could be implemented without an unreasonable degree of difficulty and I failed to offer that cure to my beloved (or at least to make her aware of it) would the two situations be comparable.

And why would someone not want it to stop if they know they are being abused and it's wrong? You were just advocating the Church in not empowering girls to be able to deal with abusive situations in the home. What's that "power to stop it"? The situation you are describing with the 3 conditions is highly improbable, unless the person abused is a masochist of some sort (but in this case I would even hesitate to call it abuse).

All of which is irrelevant unless I somehow have the power to prevent my beloved from dying of the disease but fail to do so.

Please, tell me how I can prevent myself from being sexually assaulted in my lifetime (the estimates for different groups of women vary from 1 in 3 to 1 in 7). I'm "enabling" it by my mere existence.

You said the Church of Jesus Christ â??glorifies patriarchyâ?â??and, by extension, implied that matriarchy is afforded only second-class status. Itâ??s true that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that menâ??s and womenâ??s roles are different, but that certainly doesnâ??t mean that one gender is relegated to distant second-class status behind the other.

I'll refer you back to that article again.

You failed to address the comparison I brought up: â??representing oneâ??s interestsâ? sounds less like a parent-child relationship than an attorney-client relationship; I may care about my clients, but whatever I might feel for them will pale in comparison to what I feel for my children. No one suggested that attorneys should treat their clients like slaves or that parents should treat their children like slaves. Our children might see our attempts as parents to teach them responsibility might seem like slavery to them, but as a parent, you, of course, know better.

Here's Scotland's definition of parental responsibility (I guess different terms are used in the US).

*safeguard and promote the childâ??s health, development and welfare;

*provide the child with appropriate direction and guidance;

*maintain personal relations and direct contact with the child;

*act as the childâ??s legal representative.

Being healthy, developing properly, faring well, receiving appropriate direction and guidance, developing a healthy attachment pattern and receiving affection, as well as being legally represented are all in the best interest of the child. And the parent is responsible for representing these interests, even though the child may not consciously realize what is in their best interests. I'm also not a parent, if that's what you were implying.

That might be true â?¦ if the Church of Jesus Christ had any power to â??perfectâ? anybody; it doesnâ??t. The Church can expound, exhort, invite, persuade, attempt to motivate, and so on. (Come to think of it, the same is true of even God). Itâ??s the Saints who do the â??perfecting,â? not the â??Church.â?

I don't know about God (unless you are saying He's willingly limiting His own interference). As for the Church perfecting people:

read what SWK had to say about it. "the mission of the Church is threefold:

â?¢ To proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people;

â?¢ To perfect the Saints by preparing them to receive the ordinances of the gospel and by instruction and discipline to gain exaltation;

â?¢ To redeem the dead by performing vicarious ordinances of the gospel for those who have lived on the earth." http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem..._&hideNav=1

Why don't you tell the Church that it has failed at their second mission from the beginning, since you claim they are so powerless to carry it out? Talk about 180 degrees. The victim might have the power to stop the abuse/prevent it; the victim enables it sometimes, according to you. But the Church, no matter what the victim is doing, is always powerless? Please.

[Kenngo1969]

You keep on drawing faint caricatures of my positions that hold little resemblance to what I have actually said and responding to those caricatures instead of to my actual positions. Under those circumstances I see little point in trying to continue to dialogue with you. Have a wonderful day and life.