- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The only time transgression comes up in church is when some poor Sunday School teacher turns themselves inside out trying to explain why Eve didn’t really commit a sin but only a “transgression”.
I agree – and it’s a crying shame, imo, because I believe we have the ability in our theology to have it be incredibly powerful. We have to change the definitions, but we’ve done and are doing that in the past, so it’s not an impossible task. If I can help change the definitions within my own sphere of influence, I’m fine with that – and that’s all I try to do.
Quote:You can’t say the victim of a crime was involved in transgression without implying their active role in it and with that the supposition of responsibility.
Sure I can and do
Having said that, I understand why I would have to be even more careful in a church setting – but that doesn’t mean I think it shouldn’t be discussed there. I think it needs to be discussed there, since I think it is one of the biggest theological issues we have in the current Church that needn’t be, given our theology. Granted, I would limit it initially to leadership meetings and perhaps exclusively adult classes (like a 5th Sunday 3rd-hour, for example), and I would leave plenty of time for follow-up discussion and clarification (like exists in this thread), but I absolutely have the conversation regularly at a more limited level – largely saying more of what cwald said I could have said here.
I can be brief when I want to be, as evidenced by a few of my comments here.
😳 Quote:I don’t think we have a different view of the word theologically.
I agree.
My only thought is this would be nearly impossible to discuss in church….and I would never recommend it. I believe the simple phrase saying victims are not guilty is as far as you can go in that setting.
Main reason for this is that the majority of people work on rebuttal as soon as they hear something they think they don’t agree with…usually not waiting to hear the whole concept….their mind are spinning waiting for the chance to get their point in. Heck this happens in forums like this too…even when the whole thought is written down.
Then add to that the “what I meant is not what you heard” factor and this is a huge opportunity for misunderstandings between people who love and care for one another….think hour bad it could get in a ward class!
I agree with the concept and find it beautiful when understood in its fullness..something that a one hour class could never convey.
Simple concepts and simple explanations are best in a church setting..much of the time we still get a lot of those wrong…(thinking of cwald’s comments about the grievous sin of the blue shirt)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Very few people consciously walk straight into abuse. Some may put themselves in situations where they shouldn’t be, but even that doesn’t mean that they asked for it. It’s all very well saying that a young woman shouldn’t wear skimpy clothing, and walk down a dark alley late at night, but she’s hardly doing that to be attacked. I’ve PMed Cwald about this issue, and amongst other things, I think I said that I do not believe that this doctrine comes from God. Abuse comes about because the abuser misuses their Free Agency, not because the abused wishes for it to happen. (In most cases – even here there are a few exceptions. But that is usually part of a long term pattern of abuse from earlier times.) I believe that anyone who espouses such an opinion is effectively a
wolf in sheep’s clothing.And yes I do have some experience of this matter. I’ve never experienced sexual abuse AFAIK, but I certainly suffered physical abuse in my childhood. This was not the fault of my parents, it was the fault of the people they left me with in schools etc. I was very hyperactive, but I also feel that the teachers in question shouldn’t have been in that job. I remember, in contrast, a particular teacher who took time and effort to deal with me properly, and I think I behaved in his class, and didn’t feel the need to behave badly. I’ll quote myself from that other thread (some repetition)
Quote:At this point, I’m going to out myself as a victim of physical and emotional abuse as a child. (Not sexual, AFAIK, and I hope not.) I won’t go into detail but I’ll say the following: a) it wasn’t my parents, it was school teachers in what you call elementary school, b) I still bear some of the physical traces of it, and c) yes, it does affect me psychologically. I was a hyperactive child, but I don’t think I needed some of the injuries that I sustained. It still affects my speech, very slightly, for example.
My take on repentance is that I must pay for the bad things that I’ve done myself knowingly, but not the bad things other people have done to me, let alone the sins of my ancestors… My job is to try and forgive those who were cruel and abusive to me. I don’t know if I have succeeded in that yet. I’ve forgotten who some of them are, since it happened so long ago.
I might add also that a lot of this happened before the age that the church baptizes children, so I can hardly be held responsible for the stuff before the age of seven. I don’t think I can be completely held responsible for what happened to me seven to ten/eleven either.
Roadrunner wrote:There is probably another part of the atonement worth bringing up here and which very much has to do with this topic. Victims are not sinners nor transgressors, but many victims think they are.
Do victims sin? Well, I guess if they do, it is in hate and anger. These are understandable reactions, and I suspect God sees that there are extenuating circumstances. We’re supposed to forgive, and sometimes that’s difficult.
In the worst case scenario, the abused become abusers – that’s actually very common – and the cycle continues. In which case, the abused has gone beyond what has happened to them into the role of the person who did it to them. A lot of people who are abused go off into crime and other bad situations too.
In my case I can’t actually remember the names of some of the people, don’t know where they are, or even what they looked like in some cases. In at least one case, I do know where the man in question is – he works on the trains about four hundred miles from here – but what good is that? I can’t really prove anything, and I don’t know whether it is even going to do me any good to contact him, or try and get him prosecuted. I thought of doing a short story about him, kind of a wish fulfillment, where a character manages to track down their abuser and gets his own back, but that’s not positive either. I’m sure if I did contact him, he’d probably claim I invented it all, and there’s no way of proving otherwise. Some of the potential witnesses are now dead – that’s because it happened so long ago.
Amen, SamBee. It’s interesting and instructive to me that those who are the most vocal about blaming the victim to any degree almost always have not been victims of the type of abuse being discussed (or are victims of the most random instances of such abuse) – and they generally are the strongest proponents of near total personal control. When someone’s illusions of control have not been shattered (or only violated with regard to truly random occurrences), it’s easy to assume everyone has more control than they really do and that less random cases are the result of lower self-control. Blaming the victim increases one’s sense of security, and that is important to some people who desperately need to feel secure and in control.
I understand that, so I can’t condemn people like the woman cwald mentioned – even as I can condemn completely the statement she made and others like it. I need forgiveness and mercy as much as she does, so, while I can’t sit quietly when something like that is said, I also can’t condemn her for saying it. I need to act as charitably and mercifully toward her as I can while condemning the statement as forcefully as necessary.
That’s an incredibly hard line to walk, and I’ve failed at it numerous times, but it’s important to me to keep trying.
Old-Timer wrote: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:
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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. Quote: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.
Quote:Was I supposed to tell them that she’d just been involved in transgression but not to worry?
Yes,
IFshe 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. Quote: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
EXACTLYwhat I am saying. She is “guiltless” AND“spotless”. Those were my exact words. Hi Ray, I’m not sure why there’s a need to focus this discussion on any debate around the wording of the crime. Given some people reading this thread may already be dealing with the aftermath of abuse, would it be more productive to avoid any connection to transgression?
Would you say that someone who has burgled has been involved in a law being transgressed. They own the house and bought the items that were taken. They may have even woken and been aware of the burglary but were too scared to fight the burglar off and instead waited for the crime to be completed.
On a different end of the scale to rape, that person has been physically/emotionally abused and will feel violated. But I don’t think anyone would say the burglary victim has been involved in a law being transgressed?
Instead, they need the support to emotionally and spiritually heal. It will be easier to forgive and move on from a burglary, but they will still benefit from the emotional gift that is forgiving. Forgiving is the ability to release oneself from the burden of negativity towards the perpetrator. If the belief in the atonement helps the victim forgive then all the better. But giving forgiveness isn’t exclusive to the religious but a human act available to all.
I’ll get to teach a lesson on Forgiveness in a few weeks so appreciate the opportunity to discuss this.
SamBee wrote:Roadrunner wrote:There is probably another part of the atonement worth bringing up here and which very much has to do with this topic. Victims are not sinners nor transgressors, but many victims think they are.
Do victims sin? Well, I guess if they do, it is in hate and anger. These are understandable reactions, and I suspect God sees that there are extenuating circumstances. We’re supposed to forgive, and sometimes that’s difficult.
Yes, I suppose that victims sin in retaliation or in hate and anger. My simplistic post was meant to say that I don’t really think victims can be blamed for the “first” sin. I believe that this whole thread shows what a difficult topic this is. Like was said elsewhere, if I were to talk about it in church I would stick with the idea that victims aren’t to blame. end of story. Parsing out the language is undoubtably helpful for some and is interesting to frame the atonement in, but not really necessary for me.
The things I’m about to post are probably a bit incoherent in nature, and I’m having difficulty tying them in logically to the thread. Hopefully they will help someone or maybe just typing them will help me.
My wife was a victim of sexual assault as a pre-teen and she shows no long term scars whatsoever that I can see. In her mind, it’s over, she’s healed, and she has a remarkably healthy attitude about it. She’s a TBM, RM and I wish I was more like her in many ways. She ‘fooled around’ in high school which neither she nor I attribute to her being a victim, but rather being a healthy, attractive teenager with hormones. She repented and has found peace with her teenage years.
This is something I’ve never shared with anyone, even my wife: I was a victim of abuse (relatively mild) in my pre-teen years and the abuser was a teenager just a few years older than me. I won’t go into details about it but I genuinely feel like I’m to blame for the abuse. I haven’t told anyone about it because I’m afraid that it would label me as a weirdo or freak or something, including my wife. As a teenager with raging hormones I wanted so badly to ‘fool around’ and actually now I feel a lot of regret for not doing so when I could. I felt an (in hindsight) irrational fear of burning in hell for all eternity for even the smallest infraction against the law of chastity.
How this fits into the atonement, I’m not entirely sure. I know that now that I’m an adult, I’m jealous of my wife’s teenage experiences which means that I don’t understand repentance / atonement fully. Also, blaming the victim (myself in this case) is easy to do and perhaps a natural part of human nature (important note – I’m *not* saying the OP condones it). I remember hearing a report on National Public Radio about “ambiguous” sexual relationships and perhaps at the time it was the way to describe experiences between two young people, neither of which entirely understands the situation. I find the abstract idea of an atonement very comforting in general but it’s been difficult applying to myself in the non-abstract. I suspect that many victims feel that way. For me, divine empathy is the most important thing here and I’m a little discouraged it hasn’t received more attention.
And finally (for now), I know that I would never have the courage to bring up a topic like this in a forum for fear of being scrutinized to the nth degree. If I ever had to give a lesson or talk on this in church I’d want to have a licensed counselor write the talk for me and then I’d read it word for word. There is so much abuse and so many different circumstances. That alone makes me want to believe in the atonement and apply it to myself more fully.
mackay11, Quote:Hi Ray, I’m not sure why there’s a need to focus this discussion on any debate around the wording of the crime.
For me, it’s important to discuss the wording simply because (the collective Mormon) we botch it so badly currently. I believe there are theological implications to the words we use and how we use them, and I believe those theological implications are important – in and of themselves, but even more so because of the impact they have in real life on real people. It isn’t important to a lot of people, but it is to others – and I think it’s more than important when, as I said, it’s been botched so badly in our own institutional history and present. Institutionally, we need more than just, “That’s wrong!” – and I believe we have more within our unique vocabulary of sin and transgression and within the phrasing of our 2nd Article of Faith.
I’m saying that we shouldn’t say, ever, that someone is “guilty of a transgression” – since our theology says clearly that transgressions carry no guilt – that any guilt that might have been assigned has been purchased already and redeemed by the Atonement. If there is no guilt attached, we err when we even talk about guilt and “payment” of any kind with regard to transgressions of the law. Thus, until we rid the word “transgression” of all association with “guilt”, we can talk about people being physically present when laws are transgressed, and even people innocently transgressing laws, rather than someone “committing a transgression”.
Quote:Would you say that someone who has burgled has been involved in a law being transgressed?
At the most practical level possible, I would answer, “Yes,” in situations where they were present but remained hidden and/or uninvolved in stopping it. One person broke the law; the other person was there when the law was broken and, thus, was “physically involved” in the crime. As an example, it is impossible to argue effectively that someone driving a stagecoach in the 1800’s wasn’t physically involved when that stage was stopped and robbed. However, it also it impossible to say reasonably that the stagecoach driver bears any responsibility or blame in any way for the crime. He was there physically when the law was transgressed, but nobody in their right mind would say he needed to “repent” or had “sinned” or “needed to suffer pain” in any way just because he was there. Likewise, rape victims are there when the rape occurs; they are “physically involved” in the rape itself. Those things are undeniable.
We need to be able to talk about victims of rape the same way we talk about that stagecoach driver or the person who is home when the house is robbed – not as sinners, but simply as people who were present when a law was transgressed – whose physical presence and/or involvement is understood by everyone to carry no guilt or stain.
Fwiw, I agree completely with the benefit of forgiving, but I want to reiterate that we can’t even demand that from victims – especially with any kind of time-table attached. We have been commanded to forgive all, but, sometimes, one of the effects of being the victim of egregious sin is an impairment of the ability to forgive (to “obey that law”) – and that impairment is covered in the concept of an Atonement redeeming the “transgression” of that law, as well.
roadrunner,
I respect very much that this theological framing isn’t necessary or even all that helpful for you. I really do. However, I can’t ignore the fact that we have an institutional history over the last few decades of twisting this issue theologically in a harmful way to the point where I believe it is important to remedy it, within my own sphere, to the best of my ability – which is why it means so much to me. I’m not saying you are denying me that, but I just wanted to make it clear that I understand that it isn’t as important to you as it is to me.
Thank you for your personal experiences – both your wife’s and your own. I think they illustrate what I mean when I say that we can’t judge anyone by one common standard when it comes to healing, acceptance and forgiveness – or anything else related to this topic. I think it points to the fact that all kinds of unchosen effects occur in the lives of victims when laws are broken and/or transgressed by others, and people are able to handle those effects differently. We can’t blame them for the original transgressions of the law, but we can’t blame them for how they handle the ripple effects, either. To me, that has direct and critical relevance to the principle and concept of an Atonement, so I choose to frame it in those terms when dealing with people for whom religious / theological understanding is important.
How do we fit this into the Atonement? Very easily. Jesus was abused himself.
Can we guard against it? Yes, but not completely. We can avoid certain situations, and do the same for our children, but perhaps the best is a kind of vigilance. The tragic downside of this, though is that it leads to a kind of paranoia.
Some people do put themselves into repeated positions of abuse, especially spouses/lovers, but that usually stems from an initial point of abuse further back that they didn’t ask for, or from some rationalization. It doesn’t mean that they wanted it.
Quote:How do we fit this into the Atonement?
Very easily. Jesus was abused himself.
Jesus was abused but carried no guilt or stain whatsoever for it. He still was considered sinless and perfect, regardless of the abuse.
That is profound – deeply profound. Thank you, Sam, for saying it so concisely and beautifully.
Sometimes I’ve wondered, if Jesus instead of being crusified had been sacrificed in a different manner, would it be more meaningful (or less) to our generation?
Crucifiction is a strange concept of execution & very dramatic. (very
externalhuman process) For those of us who have been abused or know family members or friends who have been abused, it is a very
internalhuman process. I hope this makes sense.The method of JC’s death isn’t important. We can apply any method of abuse that we’ve experienced to this moment in the life of JC to make it meaningful. The resurrection & atonement is the important component to the whole process.
Instead of a crucifiction on the cross, we apply: sexual abuse, family abuse, death of a child, divorce, etc.
I believe that in that moment on the cross, He was saying,
Quote:I’ve experienced it all & I understand.
And because of that, we are not alone.I’ve been thinking about this for along time. This is the only conclusion I can come up with.
Mike, this might seen a bit tangential at first, but it applies to what you just said: “Perfect” in Matthew 5:48 is defined in the Greek as “complete, whole, fully developed”. In the Sermon on the Mount, only God, the Father, is used as the example of perfection, while Jesus is included in the restating of it in the Book of Mormon. The last thing Jesus is recorded as having said is, “It is finished” – and I believe that is profound and important. It only was after the suffering of the Garden and the cross that he could say it was finished – that he was “complete, whole, fully developed”. In other words, he was sinless according to our theology but not perfect until the very end of his life – and a major part of that perfection was enduring pain, suffering and extreme abuse without reacting improperly. Nothing about that pain, suffering and extreme abuse affected his sinlessless in the slightest, and he wasn’t considered “guilty” as a result of it, but it was part of the refinement that he had to endure to die in a perfect state.
The only part of that I want to emphasize for the purpose of this discussion is that he was abused without being guilty, without sinning, without being stained in any way.
What is even more profound, I believe, is that it is very easy to read the accounts and say that he brought it on himself through his actions– that, in that way, he was like the proverbial woman who is raped while walking down a dark alley at night in a mini skirt. It’s extremely easy to blame that woman for being raped and to impute sin to her, but we don’t do the same thing in the case of actions we consider to be “righteous” – and Jesus absolutely thumbed his nose at the Roman authorities and threatened the Jewish leadership in a very real, strong way during the last days of his life. In fact, it can be said quite logically that he caused his abuse to a much greater extent than the woman in the alley caused hers – since the rapist in the alley would have attacked any woman who was in that alley, even if she was dressed in a burkha. If we accord a guiltless, stainless, sinless status to those who cause their abuse in the name of what we consider to be a good cause, how much more readily ought we to give that same consideration to those who don’t cause it?
Old-Timer wrote:It’s interesting and instructive to me that those who are the most vocal about blaming the victim to any degree almost always have not been victims of the type of abuse being discussed (or are victims of the most random instances of such abuse) – and they generally are the strongest proponents of near total personal control. When someone’s illusions of control have not been shattered (or only violated with regard to truly random occurrences), it’s easy to assume everyone has more control than they really do and that less random cases are the result of lower self-control. Blaming the victim increases one’s sense of security, and that is important to some people who desperately need to feel secure and in control.
I too understand this. A 19 year old girl was killed while cleaning hotel rooms. A friend of mine commented that the rumor was that this girl had posted her work schedule on facebook and mentioned the foolishness of sharing personal information over the internet. Sharing personal details on the internet may indeed be unwise (present company excluded of course
didsay to my group of friends was, “The reality is that any one of us could be attacked in a similar fashion and that there is precious little that we could do to prevent it”… and then I was chided for being depressing and we changed the subject. Old-Timer wrote:I’m saying that we shouldn’t say, ever, that someone is “guilty of a transgression” – since our theology says clearly that transgressions carry no guilt – that any guilt that might have been assigned has been purchased already and redeemed by the Atonement. If there is no guilt attached, we err when we even talk about guilt and “payment” of any kind with regard to transgressions of the law. Thus, until we rid the word “transgression” of all association with “guilt”, we can talk about people being physically present when laws are transgressed, and even people innocently transgressing laws, rather than someone “committing a transgression”.
I tend to agree with you Ray – but at the same time this strikes me as similar to the “are Mormons cultists?” conversation. Technichally, we are – but there is so much baggage associated with that word that it is completely unhelpful to use it. The LDS church is a lay church. The good news is that the lay people tend to know more than your average lay person in other churches. The bad news is that relatively few know as much as your average trained and paid clergy in other churches. I just think that you would be talking over the heads of most individuals and the possibility for misunderstanding is high.
Quote:I just think that you would be talking over the heads of most individuals and the possibility for misunderstanding is high.
I agree – and I think what you said is important to understand about other topics that we often mention when we are complaining that discussions at church are too shallow. We tend to say that about topics we want to discuss in more depth, forgetting sometimes that we would be “talking over the heads of most individuals” and that “the possibility for misunderstanding (would be) high.”
SamBee wrote:How do we fit this into the Atonement?
Very easily. Jesus was abused himself.
Can we guard against it? Yes, but not completely. We can avoid certain situations, and do the same for our children, but perhaps the best is a kind of vigilance. The tragic downside of this, though is that it leads to a kind of paranoia.
Some people do put themselves into repeated positions of abuse, especially spouses/lovers, but that usually stems from an initial point of abuse further back that they didn’t ask for, or from some rationalization. It doesn’t mean that they wanted it.
Sam, I agree with Ray, this is a beautiful way of putting it.
Ray, my only continued concern is the implication of the language you’re using. To say someone “is involved in a transgression” (even with no guilt) still carries the potential to send the wrong message, even if it gives the chance to theologically explore it here.
I would re-state that “being present when someone else committed a crime and a sin” or “being the victim of a crime and a sin” is a more productive statement and removes any insinuated guilt that “transgression” implies. I still don’t think transgression is the right word to use at all. Especially given its definition today:
Miriam-Webster (Transgression): an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as a : infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty.
I would instead say the victim was present while a crime and sin was committed by the rapist/highwayman/burglar.
Regarding forgiving, I would never judge nor condemn a victim struggling to forgive. But I would try to teach them of the beautiful healing power of forgiving. I withheld forgiveness for many years for a close relative (for something I considered grievous). The day I let go and forgave was one of the most incredible experiences of emotional/spiritual liberation of my life. It changed the course of my life.
Forgiving others isn’t so much a duty as a beautiful blessing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.