- Apostle Richard G. Scott “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” General Conference, Ensign, May 1992
It was posted by a person in the community with a reputation for disliking any and all things Mormon. A long stream of comments is attached to this shared image on Facebook. 98% of them are people lambasting the church for suggesting that the victim has some degree of responsibility in the situation.
Elder Scott is suggesting that the abuse victim has some responsibility in the situation: Let’s take that word apart: RESPONSE – ABILITY. What could be more empowering to a victim than to wake up one day and realize that they ARE NOT weak and powerless in the situation? To realize that they HAVE the power within themselves to STOP the madness? What could be more elevating and soul sanctifying than to realize that the abuser, who has been trying to be in charge of them – IS NO LONGER IN CHARGE?
The point here, is that a group of people are trying to lambast and ridicule every statement that comes out of every Mormon leader’s mouth. Sometimes it feels like these people are no longer even thinking, they just have a knee-jerk reaction to criticize everything that the church says, just because the church said it. The president of the church could come out with a statement encouraging it’s members to make extra donations to help feed the poor, and these same people would probably find a way to crucify him for saying such a thing.
You know what I hate even more than hypocritical, ignorant Mormons? Hypocritical, ignorant anti-Mormons. These are truly the worst kinds of humans on the planet. They demand to be treated with a live-and-let-live ethos, and yet they grant the same only to those whom they feel are “worthy” of it. It is hypocrisy of the WORST kind, and I know I’ve been guilty of it. I’m conscious enough about it that I’m hesitant to even post this, but for some reason, I feel very compelled to roast the vehement anti-Mormons for a moment. There is a certain contingent of church detractors that get under my skin SO badly. I’d rather sit through 8 hours of general conference and priesthood session, than be forced to sit in a room with 1 of them for 30 minutes. I think it’s because they remind me of the parts of myself that I dislike the most: anti-Mormons often put an ironic spin on dogma that is as irritating as a hipster’s moustachioed face.
I think the problem lies in the phenomenon of being “anti” anything.
Perhaps we should just be “pro” this and “pro” that….
Is it possible to be “pro” this, without being “anti” that?
Does the psychological process of being “anti” something inherently breed hypocrisy? Can you ever be “anti” anything equitably?
Is this why hipsters are so stupid? Is being severely counter-anything just a sure path to embarrassing hypocrisy? Hipsters are so anti-mainstream, that they have created a new mainstream to which they all congregate, refusing to see how mainstream they have become.
Okay. I need to stop being so anti-hipster and anti-anti Mormon, before I transform into a weird Mormon with the most irritating facial hair on earth.
P.S. One last thing… while we are on the subject of domestic violence: http://youtu.be/EciD1TWDK_Q?t=1m59s