Difference between revisions of "Abuse victims and lack of culpability"

Revision as of 13:29, 8 January 2013

Criticism

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

Answer

==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life but they haven't said this in contexts where those victimized by others are condemned for surviving attacks. There are a few instances where shifts in language, rhetorical style, and a lack of context might give rise to confusion for modern readers. However, current Church statements make it clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are received with love and compassion, not condemnation.

Detailed Analysis

Statements from Church Sources

As far as we have been able to determine, despite being ubiquitous in discussions on the topic, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase appears to have been coined as an over-simplification and a sensationalization.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is made clear and widely available on the official Church website:

Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. ^[1]

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

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. ^[2]

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See DC 123:1-17) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.” While mention is made of the suffering of the abused women, nothing is written to suggest the women ought to have “fought to the death.”

Even the Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, makes it clear that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. AoF 1:2

Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book The Miracle of Forgiveness written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. ^[3]

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and The Miracle of Forgiveness was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is paraphrased, over-simplified, and retold as Kimball commanding victims to “fight to the death” to stop a sexual assault. The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. No matter who repeats it, mere repetition of the words “fight to the death” doesn’t make them a fair paraphrase of what Kimball actually said.

In reality, Kimball’s statement recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but it does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.”

Kimball’s intent seems to be for the victim to be able to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret for not having decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt, self-blame, and self-loathing that often torment victims of sexual assaults and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he seems to want victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

Kimball does not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. He says “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” The last clause of the sentence is vital in understanding the meaning and should not be truncated for simplicity or for a more sensational effect. Kimball’s warning is that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. He makes no statement on how intense the resistance must be. And he certainly does not say it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

Lingering Controversy

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position, some still ruminate over the colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices used by past Church leaders to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault. There are several reasons why some confusion may remain.

Shifts in Language and Rhetorical Style

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become better equipped to talk about sexual misbehavior. We have a broader, more familiar vocabulary and much of the stigma has disappeared. What was once so keenly awkward to say in public that it typically became cloaked in flowery, emotional rhetoric can now be discussed in more calm, clinical, and precise terms.

This shift in our language has been illuminating and helpful for dealing with sexual assault and abuse. However, it may also cause the true meaning of past statements on the topic to become muddled. When we look back at them with the clearer, more exacting lenses of our current way of speaking and understanding, we might feel we’ve uncovered problems that were never intended by the speakers and never so perceived by the original audiences.

Some have drawn a parallel between past Church leaders’ comments on resisting sexual assault and past nationalist comments on resisting Communism. There was once a saying in America that went “better dead than red.” It was a strong denouncement of Communism and literally meant that the speaker would rather fight and be killed than live as a Communist. However, when we look back at this statement now, it’s not likely that we would believe the speaker meant to extend his hyperbole to say that it would be better for the millions of people living in Communist countries to rise up and dash themselves against their nations’ militaries rather than to preserve their lives by bearing with Communism and resisting only in whatever tempered ways they could find. “Better dead than red” is a figurative statement meant to express the vehement revulsion the speaker has for a situation he or she can still avoid. It is not meant as a literal prescription for people unable to avoid the same situation.

Likewise, statements from Church leaders living in the “better dead than red” era that say similar things about valuing “virtue” over life ought to be understood with the same kind of circumspection. These are figurative expressions meant to inspire and motivate people who still have freedom and choices, not literal expressions meant to condemn those who are already oppressed and victimized.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” Mat 5:29 Even very devout Christians do not take this passage literally. We understand that Jesus was not trying to institute self-mutilation as part of gospel living. Instead, we understand that he was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric. It seems odd that we would lose the proper perspective of its usage where victims of sexual assault are concerned.

Perhaps the most unfortunate place where a shift in language clouds the issue of sexual assault is in the Book of Mormon itself. The non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses. According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See Deut 22:25-26). Coming from this kind of background, the prophet Mormon would not have considered victims of sexual assault as having lost their virtue – their state of moral cleanliness -- along with their virginity. However, when mourning the crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted by Nephites in the final years of the civilization.

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. Moro 9:9-10

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. He did not condemn the victims but he did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers. It’s difficult to imagine a person reading this account in good faith and then coming away with the impression that Mormon believed the women sinned in being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. The exact choice of words may not make it clear on its own but once the tone and context of the rest of the story are considered, we can see that Mormon mourned the loss of the women’s virginity rather than what we would call today their “virtue.”

Perhaps the Law of Moses is part of what makes Mormon’s comments confusing for modern readers. According to the Law, when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity – a loss for which no real restitution can be made – the Law provided penalties against the attacker which were perceived as something similar to restitution. (See Deut 22:25-29) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the women victimized at Moriantum never had any of the traditional remedies of the Law (or whatever Nephite law came after it) applied to their situation. Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. The crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact.

Lack of Context

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." ^[4]

Unlike in Kimball’s own commentary, nowhere in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth” does President McKay directly address a situation of sexual assault. His counsel is more ordinary and cautionary rather than extraordinary and remedial. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation – but not in the way critics would interpret it.

It’s important to note that McKay also does not utter the words “fight to the death.” In fact, there is no mention of fighting at all, only of “preserving your virtue.” This counsel could mean many, many things short of literally fighting to the death.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” ^[5]

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See Dan 1:8, Matt 15:11) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. He doesn’t appear to be talking about people for whom there is no choice but to be defiled. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” ^[6] Clark is warning against being unchaste – a condition that can really only be arrived at by choice.

== Notes ==

1. [note]  "Gospel Topics, "Abuse"," lds.org website.
2. [note]  Richard G. Scott, "Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse," Ensign (May 1992). (emphasis in original)
3. [note]  Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1969). ISBN 0884944441. ISBN 0884941922.
4. [note]  J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report (April 1940), 21.