Church and child abuse

[Duncan]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's not what was stated.  Here's the part of the quote that is problematic:

"....a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse"

yeah, to be responsible for getting help for the abuse.Speaking from experience you need to realize that what happened wasn't your fault and to save yourself from further bad experiences you need to get help to handle it healthier.So, for me, somethings happened to me and a month later I went to the Bishop and so I took responsibility to do that. Otherwise i could have turned to drinking or drugs or whatever

[ALarson]

 

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

yeah, to be responsible for getting help for the abuse.

Again, that is not what was stated.

"Responsibility for abuse" is not stating that someone has a responsibility to get help.  And even that is problematic when it's a child that is being abused.

Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't have any specific examples in mind.  

I didn't think you would be able to give any.

(And, I imagine that we all know what the word "may" means....)

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

Again, that is not what was stated.

"Responsibility for abuse" is not stating that someone has a responsibility to get help.  And even that is problematic when it's a child that is being abused.

 

in the same talk he said this, 

"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. You may be left scarred by abuse, but those scars need not be permanent. In the eternal plan, in the Lord’s timetable, those injuries can be made right as you do your part.  "

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 

in the same talk he said this, 

"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. You may be left scarred by abuse, but those scars need not be permanent. In the eternal plan, in the Lord’s timetable, those injuries can be made right as you do your part.  "

That's great and I agree with that statement.

But, that's not the statement we were discussing.    Maybe he simply misspoke?  But as stated, it is possibly harmful and painful to hear for those who have been abused.

Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't think you would be able to give any.

(And, I imagine that we all know what the word "may" means....)

 

I didn't say I couldn't give any, I said "I don't have any specific examples in mind."  There is a difference. 

 

[Thinking]

On 2/4/2016 at 11:20 PM, Duncan said:

I have no doubt though the the Church law firm would tell the leaders to get help for all involve and to involved local authorities. The only reason? a church lawyer would get involved beyond giving legal advice is if there was someone suing the Church but I would imagine that doesn't happen often. They give legal advice and tell leaders what to do and what happens as lawyers typically know the legal process and disciplinary council stuff. If however a kid in the Church was messed with but not by a member why would you call SLC? you'd call the local legal eagles as you would if anyone did anything illegal

Do I understand you correctly?

• If a child is molested by a church member, call SLC first before calling the civil authorities.
• If a child is molested by a non-member, call the civil authorities.

[ALarson]

Just now, ksfisher said:

I didn't say I couldn't give any, I said "I don't have any specific examples in mind."  There is a difference. 

 

Sure, but you still didn't post any examples to back up what you stated.

That's fine as I really didn't think you'd have any examples of when an abuse victim "may" be responsible for the abuse (at least I hope not).

 

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Do I understand you correctly?

• If a child is molested by a church member, call SLC first before calling the civil authorities.
• If a child is molested by a non-member, call the civil authorities.

you aren't. I'm saying if you are abused you need to tell the authorities first then go to the Church, regardless of who did it

Edited February 9, 2016 by Duncan

[Johnnie Cake]

I recommend everyone read Elder Scotts entire address.    There is much that I agree with, however with respect to holding an abused person responsible for their abuse seems to be ill-advised council

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

However I do find this comment by Elder Scott quite disturbing:

 

When exactly is an abused responsible for their abuse? NEVER He can't be serious (although he is) and frankly I'm Gobsmacked. This is an extremely harmful message and should be stricken from all LDS records. 

see entire article here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse?lang=eng&_r=1

 

I think there are many times when an abused shares responsibility for their abuse.

 

 

[Duncan]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's great and I agree with that statement.

But, that's not the statement we were discussing.    Maybe he simply misspoke?  But as stated, it is possibly harmful and painful to hear for those who have been abused.

I think the statement should be read in light of what else he was talking about, if we pick quotations, out of context, then we can come to wrong conclusions. After reading the talk in its entirety I don't see him saying you are guilty for being abused and it isn't your fault but you need to get help. Incidentally there is a high profile criminal case going on in Canada right now discussing this very issue. 3 or 4 women came forward and accused a well known person of abuse and stuff and his defence team is questioning their motives and everything and seeing how abused they were and if it was consensual or not and so far that side is winning over the prosecution.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Duncan

[Danzo]

 

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I recommend everyone read Elder Scotts entire address.    There is much that I agree with, however with respect to holding an abused person responsible for their abuse seems to be ill-advised council

When you take away responsibility, you take away the power to change things, to power to proactively affect your situation.

Often, Only when someone takes responsibility for their situation, can they get the help they need and make the changes necessary to stop the abuse.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Danzo

[Johnnie Cake]

Here's is the entire quote in context:

Quote

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.

Elder Scott is suggesting that God may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for [their] abuse.  Sorry...but I just can't see a loving God doing this.  Anyone who has been manipulated, groomed and abused whether the abused finds some level of pleasure in the experience or not...is in no way shape or form responsible for the abuse nor should they ever be prompted to recognize responsibility. While I'm sure he was well meaning...so much of the address gives harmful council to anyone who has been subjected to abuse and the church should distance itself from this talk or remove it from the catalogue.  he goes not to suggest that the priesthood leader will help assess the abused parties level of responsibility, please no, no untrained or trained church leader should ever pass judgment on an abused person.  He continues with no matter what degree of responsibility...I'm sorry but Elder Scott just doesn't understand abuse, If he did he would never use the word responsibility in connection with an abused in the same sentence.  There is so much wrong, harmful and hurtful with his address.

I'm only speculating but I've got to believe that he somehow believes that an abused person is somehow responsible for their abuse and has some form of ability to prevent the abuse...nothing could be further from the truth

Edited February 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Here's is the entire quote in context:

Elder Scott is suggesting that God may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for [their] abuse.  Sorry...but I just can't see a loving God doing this.  Anyone who has been manipulated, groomed and abused whether the abused finds some level of pleasure in the experience or not...is in no way shape or form responsible for the abuse nor should they ever be prompted to recognize responsibility.

So you see a loving God telling the victim that they can do nothing about their situation and they should just take it?

You have a very different view of loving someone.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Danzo

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Here's is the entire quote in context:

Elder Scott is suggesting that God may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for [their] abuse.  Sorry...but I just can't see a loving God doing this.  Anyone who has been manipulated, groomed and abused whether the abused finds some level of pleasure in the experience or not...is in no way shape or form responsible for the abuse nor should they ever be prompted to recognize responsibility. While I'm sure he was well meaning...so much of the address give harmful council to anyone who has been subjected to abuse and the church should distance itself from this talk or remove it from the catalogue

I also do not see Elder Scott saying "experiencing pleasure = responsibility."

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

I think there are many times when an abused shares responsibility for their abuse.

 

 

Really?  When (please give some examples)?

[Johnnie Cake]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you see a loving God telling the victim that they can do nothing about their situation and they should just take it?

You have a very different view of loving someone.

 

You're twisting my words...that is NOT what I am suggesting...surely a loving God can offer help in the healing...but a Loving God would not hold the victim responsible

Edited February 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're twisting my words...that is NOT what I am suggesting...surely a loving God can offer help in the healing...but a Loving God would not hold d the victim responsible

I think holding someone responsible is not the same thing as taking responsibility.

I think Elder Scott was talking about later not the former.

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?  When (please give some examples)?

Woman I knew, was beaten to a pulp everytime I saw her by her boyfriend.

She even sent him to Jail, yet . . 

She still kept going back to him.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I also do not see Elder Scott saying "experiencing pleasure = responsibility."

 

You are correct, Elder Scott did not use those words...they are mine...he used the words increasing consent as justification for them having some kind of bizarre responsibility.  I used to words experiencing pleasure because studies have shown that many victims of abuse suffer immeasurable guilt due to their having enjoyed aspects of their abuse...but the important reality is that they remain guiltless despite this fact since they were groomed and manipulated.  Their entire moral compass has been flipped on its ear as they became puppets in the hands of their abuser.  Why the heck do you think these children go along with it?  They are victims.  Victims are NOT responsible. They are innocent parties to the evil actions of someone else.

Somehow holding an abused accountable for the sins of their abuser's abuse just seem sick, twisted and unnecessarily hurtful

Edited February 9, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think holding someone responsible is not the same thing as taking responsibility.

I think Elder Scott was talking about later not the former.

How exactly does an abused person take responsibility for their abuse? Honestly you are way over your head in this one...I suggest you just give up while your behind

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Woman I knew, was beaten to a pulp everytime I saw her by her boyfriend.

She even sent him to Jail, yet . . 

She still kept going back to him.

You clearly have no understanding of the psychology of abuse

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Woman I knew, was beaten to a pulp everytime I saw her by her boyfriend.

She even sent him to Jail, yet . . 

She still kept going back to him.

This thread is about child abuse.  

But no one is responsible for someone else making a choice to abuse another person except that person who chooses to continue abusing.

Do you really want to go on record here of stating that a woman is responsible for being beaten by her boyfriend?

Edited February 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Do I understand you correctly?

• If a child is molested by a church member, call SLC first before calling the civil authorities.
• If a child is molested by a non-member, call the civil authorities.

I don't think that exception is given nor do I think it makes sense given the reasons to call SLC.  (Sorry, Duncan...perhaps you mean if it is outside the jurisdiction of the Church since there is no possible Church involvement the lawyers would not have anything relevant to say, but I would disagree.  I think information they could give bishops on the best way to approach giving information to the authorities as well as any other resources they might supply would work in any case.)