Abused partially responsible for how they are treated

[helemon]

"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."
-Elder Richard G. Scott in May 1992 Ensign
And this is an inspired apostle of Christ? I think Dogzilla's church leaders must have shared Scott's opinion on this matter.

[dogzilla]

I honestly have no clue what to say here.

Maybe just this: :Puking

[darkslider]

:Puking :Puking :Puking :Puking

[silverfox]

And this is an inspired apostle of Christ? I think Dogzilla's church leaders must have shared Scott's opinion on this matter.

Seems like a way to try to avoid lawsuits. By placing blame on the victim and persuading them to be held accountable keeps their pockets lined.

Sick $hit, IMO.

[peter_mary]

Seems like a way to try to avoid lawsuits. By placing blame on the victim and persuading them to be held accountable keeps their pockets lined.

Sick $hit, IMO.

Seems like a way to protect highly placed Mormons...

And as has been the case since the days of Joseph Smith, problems in our lives are always due to our own negligence, because anything else can ONLY assume that God either was a party to the malfeasance, or at least is powerless to stop it...both of which make God out to be wimpy or jerky. And nobody really likes to think of their God that way. So, like we always do, we blame the victim to exhonerate the God.

Whatever...

Peter_Mary

[free thinker]

"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."
-Elder Richard G. Scott in May 1992 Ensign


When I was a member I would have swallowed this hook,line,and sinker. Now I am apalled by it.

free thinker

[Fredl]

Look, I don't like being the one to say, "Hey, look! There's a turd in the Punch Bowel, especially since I don't even remember being invited to this party. However, I really don't think this whole issue is as black and white as all you Apostle critical contributors to this site would like to make it.

Now, I have never taken advantage of any woman, young or old in my life. Certainly, I have never been remotely close to any behavior which might be construed as abusive. Well, hardly ever. But, I can tell you right now that if I had chosen to, I could have on several occasions on which under age girls or other inappropriate sexual partners indulged themselves in very seductive behavior and were obviously sexually available, from the time I was a student teacher in college through my days in teaching through my Marine Corps days through my years in business. To pretend that women, or, I suppose, young men NEVER contribute to these situations certainly does not conform to my experience and I do not find Elder Scott's comments ridiculous at all.

Fred

[lunaverse]

Now, I have never taken advantage of any woman, young or old in my life. Certainly, I have never been remotely close to any behavior which might be construed as abusive. Well, hardly ever. But, I can tell you right now that if I had chosen to, I could have on several occasions on which under age girls or other inappropriate sexual partners indulged themselves in very seductive behavior and were obviously sexually available, from the time I was a student teacher in college through my days in teaching through my Marine Corps days through my years in business. To pretend that women, or, I suppose, young men NEVER contribute to these situations certainly does not conform to my experience and I do not find Elder Scott's comments ridiculous at all.


My personal opinion is that there is a vast difference between consensual sex with a teenager who has willingly seduced an older man, and *nonconsensual* physical/sexual abuse to children and women (and sometimes even men).

Certainly there are some deeper psychological concepts of the cycle of abuse, people who are addicted to abuse and drama, etc. But these are nuances.

I don't get the feeling Scott is discussing these nuances, nor can such complicated topics be discussed within the short format of this quote (which is quoted often enough in Church circles that I've seen it before)... These are the types of subtlies discussed during months of therapy by a qualified and well-educated expert. (Certainly not a lay-Bishop.)

Also, Scott's quote will be and HAS BEEN applied to children, who are completely and 100% without blame when they are being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused. Humans under the age of 12 are unquestioningly completely unable to defend themselves on any level and are certainly not inviting getting smacked upside the head.

This is not to say that all Mormon leaders will re-abuse victims by placing blame on them, but I've read enough stories both online and in print to know it's common enough to be of great concern.

Luna

[Fredl]

Well, Luna, I've just finished rereading your comments for the third time trying to find something to disagree with and I can't! I agree, young children are a different case entirely and I'd agree with what you've said.

Quite awhile ago I read an extraordinarily enteresting book on criminal behavior by a couple of guys from Harvard that did affect my thinking on this subject quite a bit, however. I think the name of it was "The Criminal Mind". A point that it made was that adult criminality can be predicted very early in a person fated to become a criminal. Even as early as a few months of age, people likely to become criminals exhibit extreme irritability and an aversion to human contact in a very high percentage of cases. They are very difficult babies and make their mothers (and, I guess, mother's boyfriends) crazy. A lot of criminality appears to have a genetic basis so making their mothers crazy isn't very hard to do in many cases. The result is frequently child abuse by those closest to them. I don't think that the authors were trying to make a case that such young children deserved the abuse they received but they did seem to think that the mothers involved deserved more understanding and compassion than they often receive.

Fred

[dogzilla]

So, Fred, I was 15 when I was held responsible for my own rape. You can search on my user name and read all the details you care to subject yourself to.

Are you really implying that my situation was my fault in any way simply because I was not younger than 12? :confused:


And I would like to remind all participants in this thread that, with this topic in particular, there is a VERY fine line between intellectual debate and offensiveness.

[helemon]

Look, I don't like being the one to say, "Hey, look! There's a turd in the Punch Bowel, especially since I don't even remember being invited to this party. However, I really don't think this whole issue is as black and white as all you Apostle critical contributors to this site would like to make it.

Now, I have never taken advantage of any woman, young or old in my life. Certainly, I have never been remotely close to any behavior which might be construed as abusive. Well, hardly ever. But, I can tell you right now that if I had chosen to, I could have on several occasions on which under age girls or other inappropriate sexual partners indulged themselves in very seductive behavior and were obviously sexually available, from the time I was a student teacher in college through my days in teaching through my Marine Corps days through my years in business. To pretend that women, or, I suppose, young men NEVER contribute to these situations certainly does not conform to my experience and I do not find Elder Scott's comments ridiculous at all.

Fred

Fred, would it be ok then to buy alcohol and drugs for an underage teen just because they asked you to? Should you let a teenager drive drunk because they want to? Shouldn't the adult have a greater responsibility for their actions than the underaged participant? Is it ever ok to abuse another individual even if that individual seems to want the abuse? Is that ever a healthy thing to encourage or permit?

[lunaverse]

And I would like to remind all participants in this thread that, with this topic in particular, there is a VERY fine line between intellectual debate and offensiveness.

I would also like to clarify that my comments were intended to show where there is a very very clear line, to make a point using a very obvious example. My intention was *not* to claim that anyone over 12 deserves what they get. I don't believe this, either.

I think in the case of sexual interaction, some 13-18 year olds know *exactly* what they're doing when they wiggle their hips and wink at adult male and proposition him, so stating that every single teenage girl who has sex with an adult is 100% innocent is in error.

Probably most are 100% forced or seduced into sex entirely against their will and are 100% innocent of any wrong-doing, but since this is not absolute, I drew the line where the point was easier to make.

In order to avoid a can of worms, I moved to the realm of absolute clarity to show how Scott's quote can be obviously in error -- it certainly can be (and often is!) misapplied to teenage girls, but it's more complicated to argue the point from that perspective.

Luna

[free thinker]

Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility


Dogzilla does not need for me to speak for her but I am going to here because many of us know her story, and I am sure she does not want to go over it for obvious reasons.

Her Bishop did not have a clue. He became as much of the problem as her abuser. From what I have been able to deduce he was completetly uninspired. He made the situation worse instead of provideing a voice of kindness and understanding.

Sorry Zilla but I just had to put this in here. I know you don't need me to speak up for you.

free thinker

[Fredl]

D., how could I possibly know whether you were responsible for your own rape? I wasn't there, nor have I ever heard your side of the story or the other, if there was another. Nor am I interested in hearing about it. Doing so would only serve to provide me with one story out of I'm sure millions. How would that possibly inform me of the millions of other stories?

I am content to merely speak out of my own experience.

I have already seen enough of your continuing anger and outrage to be convinced that you had a very bad experience, indeed. When I sent my comments in, I quite expected a reply from you filled with the outrage that you regularly inflict on any target of opportunity. It can be quite intimidating, I guess. I'm just not that easily intimidated.

But, I do wish you well in your journey towards healing and reconciliation.

Fred

[why me]

And this is an inspired apostle of Christ? I think Dogzilla's church leaders must have shared Scott's opinion on this matter.
I think that Scott's quotation is open to interpretation. He makes it clear in the quotation that an abused victim can have no responsibiltiy at all in the abuse.

But he could also be inferring to date rape or putting yourself in the wrong situation at the wrong time. For example, as what happened to the women who have possibly been abused by Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant.

There are instances where common sense should prevail. And quite often common sense does not prevail. It is a sad fact that we are living in a sick world and the situation seems to me to be getting sicker.

I know that I will need to advise my daughters not to put themselves in compromising situations. Now if abuse occurs is it ever their fault---no. It is the abuser who is guilty but by being in that compromising situation they will also have to take some responsibility for that decision. (notice I said decision and not action)

I recall a young woman from Utah who I knew many years ago. She lived in a rather bad part of NYC and no matter how often I told her to keep her eyes open and avoid certain behaviors---she never listened. Fortunately nothing happened to her but if it did, she would have to bear some responsibility for being stupid.

Sometimes people need to look at themselves to understand the mess they are in. But like I said this is not to blame every victim but to understand that there are cases where the victim should have had a better head on his or her shoulders.

No, children are never responsible for abuse and no son or daughter are ever responsible for the abuse they may suffer at the hands of a parent.

[free thinker]

Ok now this is getting beyond the point of comfortability for me.

Let's be careful here. This site is a place where we can provide understanding to others who have been shamed or hurt, either directly or indirectly, by the mormon church.

We all have our own sensitivities and concerns. Let's be careful to not cross lines here. Please folks ok?

free thinker

[Fredl]

H., absolutely not! Which is why I don't do it and don't approve of it being done by others.

However, having said that, I'd also say that neither do I feel that the teenagers in the cases you mention are therefor blameless. If my teenager son was the teenager involved in the under age drinking case you mention, you may be sure, he'd be in for some very stern consequences when he got home because I also would not condone his behavior and felt that he contributed to the incident.

Fred

[why me]

Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility


Dogzilla does not need for me to speak for her but I am going to here because many of us know her story, and I am sure she does not want to go over it for obvious reasons.

Her Bishop did not have a clue. He became as much of the problem as her abuser. From what I have been able to deduce he was completetly uninspired. He made the situation worse instead of provideing a voice of kindness and understanding.

Sorry Zilla but I just had to put this in here. I know you don't need me to speak up for you.

free thinker
I agree. The bishop was a total idiot. He should have been removed from his position of authority. No one has the right to do what he did.

[dogzilla]

D., how could I possibly know whether you were responsible for your own rape? I wasn't there, nor have I ever heard your side of the story or the other, if there was another. Nor am I interested in hearing about it. Doing so would only serve to provide me with one story out of I'm sure millions. How would that possibly inform me of the millions of other stories?

I am content to merely speak out of my own experience.

I have already seen enough of your continuing anger and outrage to be convinced that you had a very bad experience, indeed. When I sent my comments in, I quite expected a reply from you filled with the outrage that you regularly inflict on any target of opportunity. It can be quite intimidating, I guess. I'm just not that easily intimidated.

But, I do wish you well in your journey towards healing and reconciliation.

Fred

Then I'm sure you'll forgive me for being a tad oversensitive and knee-jerk reactionary.

Carry on.

[dogzilla]

Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility


Dogzilla does not need for me to speak for her but I am going to here because many of us know her story, and I am sure she does not want to go over it for obvious reasons.

Her Bishop did not have a clue. He became as much of the problem as her abuser. From what I have been able to deduce he was completetly uninspired. He made the situation worse instead of provideing a voice of kindness and understanding.

Sorry Zilla but I just had to put this in here. I know you don't need me to speak up for you.

free thinker

No need to apologize. I appreciate your comments.


I'm quite sick of discussing it myself, so I'm trying to keep my comments in this thread extremely brief. Unless I can muster up a comment that could actually be helpful to someone else, I think it's best to just sit back and watch this discussion unfold organically.

:: heads for a meadow full of flowers ::

[silverfox]

I
I recall a young woman from Utah who I knew many years ago. She lived in a rather bad part of NYC and no matter how often I told her to keep her eyes open and avoid certain behaviors---she never listened. Fortunately nothing happened to her but if it did, she would have to bear some responsibility for being stupid.



Is this to imply that those who live in "bad areas" are responsible if something bad happens? Most live there because that is where they can AFFORD to live. Period. And they do the best they can under the circumstances. Does it give the perpatrator any special rights to abuse? Or justify placing more blame on the victim? Just because of where they live?

Many people have been victimized within the safety of their own homes, doing everything they are supposed to do to be safe.

I wonder if there is talk somewhere out there from one of the GAs about NO MEANS NO?

Probably not. Just like I haven't seen a talk regarding the inappropriate dress and male members.

[rainangel]

Seems like a way to try to avoid lawsuits. By placing blame on the victim and persuading them to be held accountable keeps their pockets lined.

Sick $hit, IMO.

I decided to look up the article, just because I was curious about the rest of the talk. It starts out nice enough, but then towards the end of the talk, he says this:

I caution you not to participate in two improper therapeutic practices that may cause you more harm than good. They are: Excessive probing into every minute detail of your past experiences, particularly when this involves penetrating dialogue in group discussion; and blaming the abuser for every difficulty in your life.

While some discovery is vital to the healing process, the almost morbid probing into details of past acts, long buried and mercifully forgotten, can be shattering. There is no need to pick at healing wounds to open them and cause them to fester. The Lord and his teachings can help you without destroying self-respect.

There is another danger. Detailed leading questions that probe your past may unwittingly trigger thoughts that are more imagination or fantasy than reality. They could lead to condemnation of another for acts that were not committed. While likely few in number, I know of cases where such therapy has caused great injustice to the innocent from unwittingly stimulated accusations that were later proven false. Memory, particularly adult memory of childhood experiences, is fallible. Remember, false accusation is also a sin.


The first thing that came to mind was Martha Beck and the accused abuse from her father which she remembered as an adult. From what I have read (and it has been very little) most TBMs just assume she made it all up (I haven't read her books, so I know I don't have to full story from either side, someone help me with more info here if you have any).

Another problem I have with the article as a whole, is that he doesn't distinguish between issues of adult-adult abuse and adult-child abuse. I can see how easily a young person could read (or listen, as the talk was given at conference) this and feel a lot of guilt for being told they might be responsible for their own abuse. Not that it is okay in anyway to abuse another adult, but child abuse is about as sick as it gets, IMO.

Anyway, to me is sounds like the leaders do just want to avoid responsibility and cover their own a$$es.

And it all just sickens me. I have never personally been a victim of this kind of abuse, but it is actually one of the major issues for me and my exit from tssc (specifically the lack of any "power" associated with the "priesthood").

rainangel

[lunaverse]

I decided to look up the article, just because I was curious about the rest of the talk.

Good plan!

Scott: There is no need to pick at healing wounds to open them and cause them to fester. The Lord and his teachings can help you without destroying self-respect.

The Lord and his teachings didn't do SQUAT to help me. A therapist, a 12-step group, a big pile of self-help books, and a LOT of hard work on my part did.

You wouldn't consult the Bible for fixing your car, and you don't pray and ask the Lord to design public bridges for you. And you probably shouldn't rely on blessings to cure an ear infection (though it might help as a backup measure). Science, technology, and engineering govern these things, so why is it so hard to believe psychology is required for understanding the mind?

I think this was the issue where I first began to part ways with the Church, when "Love more!" and "Pray more!" were recommended as the sole source for healing psychological situations.

The first thing that came to mind was Martha Beck and the accused abuse from her father which she remembered as an adult. From what I have read (and it has been very little) most TBMs just assume she made it all up (I haven't read her books, so I know I don't have to full story from either side, someone help me with more info here if you have any).

The repressed memory issue is a huge controversey. I stand in the middle ground. I think it is easy, under some circumstances, for memories to be implanted, either intentionally or unintentionally. However I also believe people tend to black out or dissociate horrible and very real memories, that will eventually surface years later.

I did read Beck's book. I'm inclined to believe her. 1) She has physical scars. 2) Her parents reactions (at least by her telling) are fairly typical. For instance, at first her mother acknowledged the abuse, and then later denied ever even having the conversation. 3) Her memories resurfaced *outside* of therapy, during the course of normal life. 4) She has "body memory", i.e. she often wakes up in the middle of the night laying in the exact same position of her repeated rapes, a very particular position due to the ritual nature of the abuse.

Luna

[helemon]

I did read Beck's book. I'm inclined to believe her. 1) She has physical scars. 2) Her parents reactions (at least by her telling) are fairly typical. For instance, at first her mother acknowledged the abuse, and then later denied ever even having the conversation. 3) Her memories resurfaced *outside* of therapy, during the course of normal life. 4) She has "body memory", i.e. she often wakes up in the middle of the night laying in the exact same position of her repeated rapes, a very particular position due to the ritual nature of the abuse.

Luna

The thing that scares me is that if it is true, what does this say about the man many Mormons believed for over half a century to be the brightest mind in Mormonism? What does this mean about the rumored ritual abuse stories that you hear whispered and gossiped about? Does it give more credence to the possibility of this hidden abuse cult within the cult of Mormonism? If Nibley was into this crap I am sure he could have easily drawn more people into following his beliefs and practices. Do we need to worry about others who are following in Nibley's footsteps? Is there evidence that this was more than the sick twisted actions of a single man?

[lunaverse]

The thing that scares me is that if it is true, what does this say about the man many Mormons believed for over half a century to be the brightest mind in Mormonism? What does this mean about the rumored ritual abuse stories that you hear whispered and gossiped about? Does it give more credence to the possibility of this hidden abuse cult within the cult of Mormonism? If Nibley was into this crap I am sure he could have easily drawn more people into following his beliefs and practices. Do we need to worry about others who are following in Nibley's footsteps? Is there evidence that this was more than the sick twisted actions of a single man?

My opinion is that in Nibley's case, it was one man acting alone.

The abuse would have occurred right around the time the papyrus scrolls emerged. Nibley of course was told by the Church to look at them and defend against the claims that they were from common Egyptian funerary texts. Beck's theory is that he snapped. He had finally found evidence that he could not explain away or refute. Yet he was not in a position to leave the Church -- he had committed too far, and his meager income was 100% dependent on the Church.

Call it the ultimate cognative dissonance.

The ritual she describes involves a lot of Egyptian symbology, as if he were trying to re-enact Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Book of Abraham facsimilies.

There was no indication that in this case, it went beyond that. It's possible (and there are some hints) that other of his children may have gotten it, too, but no other men were involved. It would have been a very deep, dark secret.

My impression of the Church and how it relates to domestic abuse is that it enables the behavior, but does not, in and of itself, encourage it -- Much the same way the wife of an alcoholic defends her husband, calls his boss to make excuses for him, cleans up his messes, and helps him hide his problem from the world. She doesn't want him drinking, yet without her help, the alcoholic would have to face harsh realities.

I've not seen evidence or claims of sex rings or group abuse in the mainstream Church. Now... Fundamentalism? That's a whole other story...

Luna

P.S. they have found that the more intelligent a person is, the more they are committed to their beliefs. That would have only added to Nibley's cog dis upon examining the papyrus scrolls.

[why me]

Is this to imply that those who live in "bad areas" are responsible if something bad happens? Most live there because that is where they can AFFORD to live. Period. And they do the best they can under the circumstances. Does it give the perpatrator any special rights to abuse? Or justify placing more blame on the victim? Just because of where they live?

Many people have been victimized within the safety of their own homes, doing everything they are supposed to do to be safe.

I wonder if there is talk somewhere out there from one of the GAs about NO MEANS NO?

Probably not. Just like I haven't seen a talk regarding the inappropriate dress and male members.

When I wrote a bad part of NYC I meant an area where there was a lot of crime. And this crime took many forms. My post was not considering the socio-economic aspects of the people but how foolish behavior needed to be avoided. I tried to warn her not to walk down the street with her head in the clouds and to be aware what is happening on the street.

Luckily nothing happened to her. Now if she went out at 2am to walk her poodle and got raped or mugged I can blame the rapist and mugger but I would also have to say to myself and not to her that her actions were irresponsible. That is what I meant.

But you are correct about the poverty of the people who live in such neighborhoods. But this Utah young women was clueless in how to survive in such a neighborhood and did not seem to get it or understand.

[why me]

I decided to look up the article, just because I was curious about the rest of the talk. It starts out nice enough, but then towards the end of the talk, he says this:



The first thing that came to mind was Martha Beck and the accused abuse from her father which she remembered as an adult. From what I have read (and it has been very little) most TBMs just assume she made it all up (I haven't read her books, so I know I don't have to full story from either side, someone help me with more info here if you have any).

Another problem I have with the article as a whole, is that he doesn't distinguish between issues of adult-adult abuse and adult-child abuse. I can see how easily a young person could read (or listen, as the talk was given at conference) this and feel a lot of guilt for being told they might be responsible for their own abuse. Not that it is okay in anyway to abuse another adult, but child abuse is about as sick as it gets, IMO.

Anyway, to me is sounds like the leaders do just want to avoid responsibility and cover their own a$$es.

And it all just sickens me. I have never personally been a victim of this kind of abuse, but it is actually one of the major issues for me and my exit from tssc (specifically the lack of any "power" associated with the "priesthood").

rainangel
I think that the quotes you mention can also be attributed to the Martha Beck story in a different way---that she made it all up. And I think that this is what Scott is talking about. I believe that many innocent people have been falsely accused by their abuser from the kind of treatment Scott mentioned.

This subject is a two way street. As far as martha is concerned I heard that she attempted to kidnap her father at some point in her life. She doesn't seem to be the most stable of people.

Unfortantely Nibley died just when the book was published. And as the story goes the guy cannot defend himself against accusations.

And so her book could stand as a final testament of the man himself. Is Martha's story true? Who knows. But the book will remain a gossip point besmirching a character who could be innocent.

I think that it wasn't an article but a talk at general conference. I think that he should have avoided the topic and kept it as an Ensign article.

What can a person say in a talk at general conference? He covered the basics in his talk as was relevant for that time in society, imo.

If I remember correctly this could have been a hot topic in american society---how the abused identify their abusers whether falsely or correctly.

[silverfox]

What can a person say in a talk at general conference? He covered the basics in his talk as was relevant for that time in society, imo.

If I remember correctly this could have been a hot topic in american society---how the abused identify their abusers whether falsely or correctly.

I would think leaders who claim to have the "truth" and are led by a profit who actually communicates with God would find a better reason than it being "relevant" for that time in society.

But I think you are right. That's why half the shit they talk about is just THAT. Shit. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT, why_me, it's shit.

[why me]

I would think leaders who claim to have the "truth" and are led by a profit who actually communicates with God would find a better reason than it being "relevant" for that time in society.

But I think you are right. That's why half the shit they talk about is just THAT. Shit. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT, why_me, it's shit.
Maybe, but I think that he had his viewpoint and I cannot say that he was wrong or right. I am not a professional in these matters.

But actually, 'relevant' is what it is all about. People living in the now want guidence for the now. This is why there is so much being spoken about pornography at the moment because it is a 'problem'. Now maybe 13 years from now it will not be a problem but now it is.

Maybe this was the same idea for the talk a few years ago. Address the problem if the problem exists. But was it a problem 13 years ago. I do remember a lot of publicity something in relation to this topic but I cannot be sure.

[silverfox]

Maybe, but I think that he had his viewpoint and I cannot say that he was wrong or right. I am not a professional in these matters.

But actually, 'relevant' is what it is all about. People living in the now want guidence for the now. This is why there is so much being spoken about pornography at the moment because it is a 'problem'. Now maybe 13 years from now it will not be a problem but now it is.

Maybe this was the same idea for the talk a few years ago. Address the problem if the problem exists. But was it a problem 13 years ago. I do remember a lot of publicity something in relation to this topic but I cannot be sure.

But.....is he qualified to comment on the subject? Is he qualified to give guidance on the topic?

[lunaverse]

But.....is he qualified to comment on the subject? Is he qualified to give guidance on the topic?

My vote is that he is NOT. And again, the sutble nuances of how much the victim may be to blame (i.e. addiction to abuse, being stuck in abuse patterns, etc) is usually disscussed in the context of THERAPY with a lot of background information about how abuse dynamics work, and a lot of self-esteem building FIRST. Or in books with similar buildup.

Not in a 15 minute talk at general conference.

Luna

[free thinker]

But.....is he qualified to comment on the subject? Is he qualified to give guidance on the topic?


He is manifestly not qualified in this arena. He is trained as a nuclear physicist. Hardly an individual that should be offering advice in the mental health arena.

I think 90% of what the GA'S say is shit. The other 10% is already extant in the larger community.


Most of these men quaily the best in one arena. They are masters at inducing fear and guilt.

free thinker

[silverfox]

Agreed, Luna and FreeThinker. I don't know what makes him think he is so damned qualified to advise or guide victims.

Very damaging.

[nate]

I think that Scott's quotation is open to interpretation. He makes it clear in the quotation that an abused victim can have no responsibiltiy at all in the abuse.


I agree with this statement only when Scott's last sentence is omitted.

Either with responsibility or without, the power of atonement will help? Now...I was under the impression that the power of atonement is only needed when you've committed a sin; you know...when you have something to atone for.

Nate