Abuse and the Atonement

I think that is well said Ray.

I believe that the statement made at church is a false an evil doctrine…and I feel deeply sad and remorseful when victims hear this…especially from members of my church under the guise of teachings from the Mormon Prophets.

How did it come to this?

I believe that after the church axed the practice of polygamy, they (the church) became overly obsessed with sex and chastity, and wanted so badly to show the world that they were “sexually pure,” polygamy be damned.

During this time…morality became synopsis with sexual purity…and the focus of righteousness and “worthiness.”

We see many of these apostate teachings creeping into the church in the 50’s and 60’s…and with the sexual revolution of the 60s-70s it even got worse…and we see false teachings and doctrines gleaned from the apostles in books like “The Miracle of Forgiveness” and the teachings of Mark E Peterson.

I am sure that some of the prophets today see the apostasy of teachings and the beliefs that morality and worthiness is based mostly on sexual purity…and how “sex before marriage is the sin next to murder” and how much damage this has caused…but we still have the old guard in SLC…and throughout the church local leadership that just cannot accept that the church leaders may have made comments and statements in the late 60’s, 70’s and 80’s that were wrong and the opinions of men, and that did a tremendous disservice and harm to many of the mormon people.

There are many people still in the church who believe it…that “sex before marriage is the sin next to murder” and that one “should die fighting rather than survive a rape attack.” Sorry friends…but that is apostate teachings. And a few, A FEW of them…take it to the next step…which is why we still occasionally hear this kind of rhetoric that was referenced in the OP, from the pulpit today.

Now…I know there was never a time when a prophet came out and flat out said that abuse and rape victims are guilty of sin. SWK statements have been interpreted that way…there can be no doubt of that. But I think the biggest mistake was/is how the church places so much emphasis on sex…especially in the 80’s…going as far as claiming in youth manuals that masturbation was a “wicked and evil practice”, and condemning oral sex between married adults over the pulpit in church.

Why? Why are they so obsessed with sex? I don’t get it.

Anyway. The statement in the OP is sad…it’s my world…I have always agreed that for the most part the LDS people are true. I don’t blame this old women. She is only reiterating what she learned and heard and was indoctrinated to believe growing up by some other messed up LDS people. It happens. My hope is the prophets will continue to address this kind of apostasy within the church…and that they will not be so worried about offending the old faithful members, that they end up chaing away the moderate younger generations….which is what I see happening all to often today.

wayfarer, I agree that a victim of rape or abuse of any kind has not “committed a transgression” – and I never said that. Remember, I started the post by saying I was going to word it “VERY carefully”.

I defined “sin” and “transgression” very carefully specifically to avoid saying a victim “commits a transgression” – and, as a result, I never said a victim “commits a transgression” – not once. Go back and re-read the post. I didn’t use the word “commit” in my post – not once. “Commit” is an action verb, and I don’t see being a victim of rape or any other “commission” of sin by someone else as being a case of the victim “committing” anything.

I said a victim is involved in an activity that, according to a standard definition of “law”, is a “transgression of the law” but not a sin in any way that requires repentance – in the same way that someone who is mentally disabled has not sinned even if they do something that transgresses a law and, thus, does not need to “repent”. Neither person in either case is “accountable” for what happens in the case of being involved in sexual activities that are in opposition to a commonly accepted definition of the Law of Chastity – because in one case there is no understanding, while in the other case there is no free choice. In other words, there is no “commission of transgression” (active verb) – only “commission of sin” on the part of the perpetrator that causes a law to “be transgressed”. (passive verb used intentionally) In other words, I don’t use the term “transgressor” at all; rather, I talk of laws “being transgressed”.

The heart of my point is that those innocently involved in transgressions of a law through inability to understand or act freely have not sinned and need no repentance. Our court system understands this with regard to the commission of crime; it is tragic that so many of our fellow worshipers don’t understand it with regard to the commission of sin.

I agree, roadrunner, and addressed that aspect in the post without once using the term “transgressor” – although I didn’t address divine empathetic understanding.

Ray,

My post wasn’t really directed at you and I’m thankful you created this topic. It’s a difficult subject and I’m glad you posted it. My post was really only trying to say that divine empathy is a powerful part of the atonement that I wanted to emphasize.

That being said, I didn’t understand the section below which I think can be misunderstood.

those who understand the Law of Chastity (even to the fullest extent possible) and participate in its violation without their own full consent also have “transgressed the law”

GB (and everyone),

I agree that I mis-typed in that instance. I should have said that someone who is raped is involved physically in a law being transgressed (because two people have to be physically present for that law to be transgressed) but not responsible in any way for that involvement. That’s what I meant, and I didn’t edit carefully enough in that sentence. Sorry for that mistake. I am going back and changing that sentence so others who read it won’t reach the same conclusion. I also am changing the sentence that mentions the transgression of the law being forgiven to include explicitly a statement that the victim doesn’t need forgiveness personally, since she remains guiltless and spotless in the eyes of God. That is only implied in the original phrasing, and I don’t want to rely on implications.

I’m saying our culture uses the word “transgress” incorrectly and not in accordance with our theology. I’m saying we need to change the foundation of how we use the words “transgress”, “transgression”, “transgressor”, etc. to avoid the incorrect conclusions we (collectively, as a people) reach. If we don’t do that, we neuter the very concept and might as well not use it at all – and, in practical terms, we rarely use it for that very reason, I believe. I think the distinction is profound and important, so I reject how those words commonly are used.

I will post another comment specific just to definitions, but to answer your comment:

I agree, GB, with almost everything you said in your comment – and I didn’t say otherwise in the post. Point-by-point:

Using the term “transgression” implies an action.

Of course, but the “actor” (the one who acts) in the case of rape is the rapist. The victim is not the “actor”; the victim is “acted upon” – and that’s a critical distinction. To put it in legal terms, the person who is raped is understood to be part of the rape but is not held accountable in any way because s/he did not “commit” the rape (generic “her” from now on) The action (rape) was committed upon her. Iow, the law was broken, and she was “involved” in the action that broke it, but there is no legal consequence for that involvement. She was not guilty of a crime in any way and is innocent despite her physical involvement.

You didn’t have to use the work “commit” but it’s implied.

Only if it’s understood and read that way. I don’t believe it should be understood and read that way, which is part of my point in the post.

Transgression can’t just apply to the act since the act is sin and not something that’s not that serious.

I said the rapist sinned and that his action was a sin. I never said rape isn’t a sin by the rapist. I view rape as a sin next to murder in seriousness. I said it’s not a sin by the victim. I said when we talk about being raped in moral, theological terms, we should talk of a law being transgressed by the sin of the person who commits rape – and avoid completely saying the victim has “committed” anything, since she hasn’t.

I have a hard time making sense out saying that someone being raped is involved in a “transgression of the ” and that’s somehow different than the sin the rapist committed.

Really?? – and I mean that sincerely. It’s not different at all from saying that someone was physically involved in a law against rape being broken (which is undeniable, because it takes two people being physically present for a rape to occur) but that being raped is radically, fundamentally different than raping. I have to draw the distinction between raping and being raped, and, theologically, I do that by distinguishing between committing a sin and having a law be transgressed. Neither of those wordings focuses on the victim; the first focuses on the rapist, while the second focuses on the law.

Was I supposed to tell them that she’d just been involved in transgression but not to worry?

Yes, IF she understands that in the way I am meaning it; abso-freaking-lutely not, if she doesn’t. Not once did I get into how I would talk about this with someone in the situation you just described – and I certainly wouldn’t approach it as a theological discussion unless I felt the individual needed to hear it framed in that way.

What I told her and her mother was that she’d done nothing wrong and as far as I was concerned she still should be considered a virgin.

Amen. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. She is “guiltless” AND “spotless”. Those were my exact words.

Fwiw…I had no problem with the OP.

I chuckled when I read it…because you could have just said “abuse and rape victims have not sinned and have no need for repentance.”

But that is not you.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

question: how many Q15 talks in the last 20 years do you think I could find, that addressed this very issue?

I think if you searched lds.org you would find dozens. DOZENS.

My point…I’m a heretic and an outcast because I wear a blue shirt and drink beer. And yet we have temple recommend members who are holding leadership callings, because people like me can’t…no TR…and yet they refuse to listen to their own prophets. And I think they often get a free pass because they “look” righteous, pay tithing and keep the WOW, and follow the pharasaical rules like wearing white shirts.

That is just my opinion.

Question: who has committed the greater sin? Me in my blue shirt? Or faithful members who refuse to listen to the prophets…refuse to evolve and forsake the false culture and traditions of their fathers?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2