Your Virtue Is Worth More Than Your Life.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Hre's something a little more recent that Elder Scott said:

 

"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."

- Apostle Richard G. Scott "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," General Conference, Ensign, May 1992

 

I'm glad you mentioned this because it's exactly what I was thinking about.

Sadly, this talk and concept is one of Elder Scott's more memorable/infamous statements. It is sad and wrong to blame the victim.

[KevinG]

It is sad and wrong to blame Elder Scott for blaming the victim.

[HappyJackWagon]

Many situations are very complex.  A victim who crossed a line voluntarily, but was coerced to go further than they had intended.  I have first hand knowledge of situations like that and have counselled victims accordingly.  For example:  "Just because you went further than you should have, or placed yourself in a risky situation, doesn't mean you deserved to be victimized."

 

Elder Scott is not advocating that victimization includes guilt.  He is saying that if someone feels guilt or partial responsibility then they can be forgiven as well as the person who had no guilt, or much guilt.

I think your interpretation is reading far more into his words than what he said.

 

"Most often, the victim is innocent" implies that sometimes the victim is not innocent.

 

"the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility" -  He is clearly stating that in some situations the victim bears some guilt that must be forgiven.

[KevinG]

I think your interpretation is reading far more into his words than what he said.

 

"Most often, the victim is innocent" implies that sometimes the victim is not innocent.

 

"the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility" -  He is clearly stating that in some situations the victim bears some guilt that must be forgiven.

 

You are wrong.  You forgot this from the same talk:

 

"I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

[HappyJackWagon]

You are wrong.  You forgot this from the same talk:

 

"I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

He's contradicting himself.

 

I'm glad he said the latter, but it doesn't change the fact that he also blamed the victim earlier.

[KevinG]

He's contradicting himself.

 

I'm glad he said the latter, but it doesn't change the fact that he also blamed the victim earlier.

 

He did NOT blame the victim.  There are times when two parties contribute to an abusive situation.  Those are the ONLY times he is referring to as opposed to someone being victimized by a predator.

 

Any other interpretation is extremely cynical and jaded.

[Calm]

". At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse..."

I think I would have been happier if added here was something along the lines of '...though at times victims feel guilt and responsibility when the reality is they have no need to'. I think this actually works well with the next bit of seeking out help to address this, as both those who as Kevin mentions went farther than was morally right intentionally but were then forced into being victims can be helped to know what level of responsibility they hold (maybe they intentionally got drunk, for instance but meant to do nothing else) and those who feel guilt when they shouldn't (their drink was drugged) can use reality checks to help get past the past.

And then after "seeds of guilt" add something like ', often unnecessary or misplaced,'.

Those who feel guilty can focus on part of the counsel that magnify their feelings and ignore parts that may completely absolve them so the possibility of no guilt being necessary for many needs to be repeated over and over in almost every sentence in such counsel.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Apostles back then taught "Better off dead clean, than alive and unclean." If I lived back then I would feel I'm better off dying now based on what they're saying and would have wished I died at 7 years old so I could be held unaccountable for my sins.

[KevinG]

Apostles back then taught "Better off dead clean, than alive and unclean." If I lived back then I would feel I'm better off dying now based on what they're saying and would have wished I died at 7 years old so I could be held unaccountable for my sins.

 

You misread that bit about parents failing to teach their children before the age of accountability.

[KevinG]

". At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse..."

I think I would have been happier if added here was something along the lines of '...though at times victims feel guilt and responsibility when the reality is they have no need to'. I think this actually works well with the next bit of seeking out help to address this, as both those who as Kevin mentions went farther than was morally right intentionally but were then forced into being victims can be helped to know what level of responsibility they hold (maybe they intentionally got drunk, for instance but meant to do nothing else) and those who feel guilt when they shouldn't (their drink was drugged) can use reality checks to help get past the past.

And then after "seeds of guilt" add something like ', often unnecessary or misplaced,'.

Those who feel guilty can focus on part of the counsel that magnify their feelings and ignore parts that may completely absolve them so the possibility of no guilt being necessary for many needs to be repeated over and over in almost every sentence in such counsel.

 

I would guess that Elder Scott would be much more comfortable with your interpretation than HappyJackWagon's.

[Calm]

He did NOT blame the victim.  There are times when two parties contribute to an abusive situation.  Those are the ONLY times he is referring to as opposed to someone being victimized by a predator.

Yes, a person can both be a victim and responsible for other immoral behaviour. For example, an individual may be willing to take his or her clothes off and cuddle, but have no intention to do more but then is forced to engage in more and is raped. The person is morally reponsible for the choice of undressing and physical contact, but not for the rape and should not feel guilt or self doubt for the rape as in "maybe I was really asking for it".

Or in an ongoing abuse situation...a relative of mine was very verbally abusive of her spouse. For that she is responsible. She however was fully a victim when he chose to respond with physical abuse. His responsibilty of his choice to harm her was not made less by her verbal abuse. 'S/he drove him/her to it' does not excuse either person's choices. In neither case was it necessary for self defense or a wake up call to the other, etc. Being a victim does not remove other responsibilities.

[BlueDreams]

Unfortunately many victims feel guilt after being abused. So this again is a rather counter-productive and unfortunate teaching. I don't think any good psychologist would recommend this approach. But of course Elder Scott was not an expert on dealing with victims of abuse (neither am I). 

......actually, it's not terrible advice in my OP. I wouldn't give this quote straight up to a person who is initially getting out of an abusive situation. But noting personal patterns/behaviors that maintained abusive situations  (particularly ones that are long term or with a partner) can help break the chains of further abuse in relationships to come. I say I wouldn't give this advise in the beginning because many abuse victims would latch on to the idea that they are guilty and would distort their fault in it, though Richards was very adamant about noting that most likely you had little to no responsibility for the abuse. So I think he could have worded it differently and more carefully (in a way similar to what Cal noted). But the advice isn't blatantly atrocious as the ones in the quotes from the 60's.

 

With luv,

BD

[Thinking]

How does a rape victim lose virtue in anyway? These quotes refer to virtue, not virginity. The rape overreaction to these quotes is unfounded.

 

How can you lose your life in the struggle to stay virtuous, if it's not a rape situation? Is a person supposed to commit suicide rather than fornicate?

[jkwilliams]

How can you lose your life in the struggle to stay virtuous, if it's not a rape situation? Is a person supposed to commit suicide rather than fornicate?

That quote makes sense only in context, and in context, Pres. Kimball was talking about rape.

[DJBrown]

 

In a recent online discussion I had about sexual purity, someone brought up the following quotes by past church leaders:

 

“There is no true Latter-day Saint who would not rather bury a son or a daughter than to have him or her lose his or her chastity – realizing that chastity is of more value than anything else in all the world.”

(Prophet Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, complied by G. Homer Durham, p. 55)

 

“It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, LDS Prophet, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 196)

 

President David O. McKay:

Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives.”

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 63)

 

“I know what my mother expects. I know what she’s saying in her prayers. She’d rather have me come home dead than unclean.”  (Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, April 1967, pp. 51-55)

 

Such statements are regarding as appalling by former Mormons (and perhaps active Mormons) or those of other faiths or no faith. 

Given the fact that there is the possibility for repentance, should one lose their virginity outside the bonds of marriage, does the attitude reflected in the above statements make sense to all or do we regard them as simply personal opinions of the ones who said them? 

I know what FairMormon says about it but what are the opinions here?

 

 

 

I think these statements are being misunderstood.  I do not believe for one second that the brethren here are suggesting that a person who has not died and who is raped is at fault.  

 

It is a matter of voluntarily given up one's virtue- by intentionally sinning sexually.  Anytime we forfeit our agency in committing such sins, we are gambling.  A person who decides for the first time to have sex outside of marriage is gambling.  How does he or she know that repentance will be possible?  Who knows how long a person will live.  Who knows that one will have the desire to repent after giving in to sexual sin.  I know a lot of people who thought going into a "first-time" situation that they would repent later.  And then, many of those people make poor decision after poor decision and don't seem to come back.  

 

I personally agree with what I think the brethren are saying here.  And it is not about rape.  I think it would be better for me to die in a car crash today than to commit adultery with a co-worker today.  

[JAHS]

I think some of these quotes by past church leaders are not meant to be an either/or situation; but just a way to express in an emmotional way their fear of a poor choice being made. A parent saying they would rather their missionary son come home in a box rather than unclean, is just an expression of how horrible it woud be if their son were to commit sin while on a mission; not that they really want him to die instead. 

 

I think it's very interesting how the opinions of our church leaders tend to evolve and change over time; not that they are changing doctrine, but just the attitude by which they express thier beliefs in some of the doctrines. They tend to mellow out over the years, with succeeding new leaders and improved information and experience with such issues.

[Calm]

"I think these statements are being misunderstood. I do not believe for one second that the brethren here are suggesting that a person who has not died and who is raped is at fault. "

But just choosing to die is not an acceptable choice (suicide) and equating random events ending in death where there is no choice with immoral choices doesn't make sense so if that is what they meant it was very poorly written.

"I personally agree with what I think the brethren are saying here."

Again if it is not clear and one can only "think this is what they are saying".... poorly written. And it is not a subject that should be acceptable given the guilt that rape and abuse victims generally experience.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Calm

[Guest]

I think it was discussed previously in a thread here on similar topic that Pres Kimball's son has said that Pres Kimball later regretted some of the things he wrote in TMoF as being too strong... Being unfamiliar with what the son was talking about, I'm not sure what all was being referred to by the son...

I adhere to the quotes posted by KevinG in his post #38 as being the correct stance..

 

GG

Most people do retreat comments they have made...thankfully few of us have them written in a best-selling book. President Kimball was a kind and loving man. There is no senecio on earth when a young woman would have told him as a Bishop, Stake President, Apostle or Prophet, where he would have told a young woman you did not fight enough! There is no universe where that might have happened. Not all can write with the wisdom of 100 years of experience. In fact when it comes to "men" writing about how young women (or even older women) they would do well to tread lightly, or seek the words of their wives...or as a book I was read and enjoyed that was written by Elder Holland and his wife....I believe the name was, "On Earth as it is in Heacen". In fact any male seeking to speak of very private sensitive matters concerning the opisite sex, should seek out his wife and his daughters advice.

[Calm]

" A parent saying they would rather their missionary son come home in a box rather than unclean, is just an expression of how horrible it woud be if their son were to commit sin while on a mission; not that they really want him to die instead."

Unfortunately if this is true, their kids may not just interpret it as an expression.

[Buckeye]

 

How does a rape victim lose virtue in anyway? These quotes refer to virtue, not virginity. The rape overreaction to these quotes is unfounded.

 

In times past, and even unfortunately sometimes in the present, it was common to equate virginity with virtue. It was thought that a woman could be deprived of her chastity/virtue against her will. The BOM makes this very error. Not surprisingly, so did many modern prophets. Thankfully, as others have pointed out, these horrible teachings have been (mostly) dead for some time. Let's keep it that way.

 

 

Moroni 9:9-10 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

 

[JAHS]

 

 

 

In times past, and even unfortunately sometimes in the present, it was common to equate virginity with virtue. It was thought that a woman could be deprived of her chastity/virtue against her will. The BOM makes this very error. Not surprisingly, so did many modern prophets. Thankfully, as others have pointed out, these horrible teachings have been (mostly) dead for some time. Let's keep it that way.

 

 

 

I guess it depends on one's definition of "chastity". I think in the past people tended to equate the loss of chastity to the actual sex act itself; therefore once one has had sex outside the bonds of marraige, whether it was consensual or not, they lost their chastity, and could never get it back. Nowadays we apply a spiritual and psychological definition of loss of chastity to include the requirement of a person's willingness to have sex. 

[Teancum]

The people who most frequently quote Spencer Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness passages on fighting for one's chastity are pot stirrers and Bishops over 80 years of age.

 

 

Horse poo. Pure horse poo.  

 

Address substance, don't insult. - Ares

Edited October 27, 2015 by Ares

[Teancum]

I know you're trying to be funny, but what was taught is not particularly humorous, at least not to me. I would never tell my daughters that they should fight off a rapist with their lives, lest their virtue be stolen. 

 

 

John it is not just the rape issue. To equate sexual sin as always next to murder is nonsense.  Young people in the heat of passion make mistakes. My MIL is not LDS. A very active LDS woman who is friends with my MIL once told her the "I would rather have a child dead than lose their virture" and my MIL, who is an active Protestant, thought this woman was nuts and an idiot and it caused her to think the LDS Church is a clearly a bit nuts.

[jkwilliams]

John it is not just the rape issue. To equate sexual sin as always next to murder is nonsense. Young people in the heat of passion make mistakes. My MIL is not LDS. A very active LDS woman who is friends with my MIL once told her the "I would rather have a child dead than lose their virture" and my MIL, who is an active Protestant, thought this woman was nuts and an idiot and it caused her to think the LDS Church is a clearly a bit nuts.

I know. It's all kind of awful. Glad it has been left in the past. At least for most people.

[Buckeye]

John it is not just the rape issue. To equate sexual sin as always next to murder is nonsense.  Young people in the heat of passion make mistakes. My MIL is not LDS. A very active LDS woman who is friends with my MIL once told her the "I would rather have a child dead than lose their virture" and my MIL, who is an active Protestant, thought this woman was nuts and an idiot and it caused her to think the LDS Church is a clearly a bit nuts.

 

It's also extremely dangerous when youth get the impression that sexual sins cannot be fully repented of (aka licked cupcakes). I'm appalled sometimes at how little we actually believe the atonement.