Perception, Regardless of Definition

I've got an amazing roommate, and we have really intense conversations on topics that seem to find us; often coming out of no where. Due to this, we've discussed some very controversial topics and I've realized how my opinion differs from hers, and therefore, from the majority of traditional conservative Christendom. I won't get into some of the more scandalous of my views, but I did want to touch on the topic of abuse. Of the first three definitions, implying misuse, mistreatment, and speaking harshly or unjustly to or about, it's the fourth definition that speaks of what I want to address: to commit sexual assault upon.

Firstly, I have to express my bias on this subject, as a victim, as well as a sibling, niece, aunt, daughter, and friend to victims. I do not like abusers, of any variety, but especially these kinds of abusers. They exercise their will over another human being, subjecting them not only to the sexual abuse, but to emotional and physical abuse, and not just at the moment of the offence, but every day of that person's existence thereafter. I have, literally, not gone a single day without thinking of it, or it's effects on me.

Several months ago I was on a public chat client which pairs you, randomly, with a stranger. Most frequently I talk to them as though I'm a alien (that's the easiest sentient and intelligent creature I can think of who could be asexual, which allows me to avoid the "asl" question with some humour), but I was frank (although dishonest regarding age and circumstance) with one individual who identified himself as an 18 year-old male from Wales. He admitted that when he and his friend were both six years-old, they performed fellatio on each other, at the request of the other boy. This individual viewed it as a case of "boys being boys", and claimed to be heterosexual, and told me he didn't abuse drugs or alcohol, nor was he promiscuous. Deviance of these varieties is a noted effect of sexual abuse, and while I expected very different answers from him, it follows the line of reasoning I developed from the conversation: perception of one's role is more important than popular opinion or the law, to the individual.

After I had this conversation, my roommate came into our living area and I discussed it with her. I respect my roommate and her opinions, but I also disagree with what she says on occasion, and this was one of those occasions. She said, regardless of what that young man felt, he was a victim. With all due respect to her, from what I know of her, she can't ever empathize with a victim of abuse. She can absolutely sympathize with me and people like me, but empathy is a vastly different thing. The law would disregard this young man's experience, as neither participant was mentally superior to the other, and as the young man claimed in our discussion, he was curious. "Boys being boys", would be the response. While his experience and mine are extremely different, he viewed his experience in, almost, a positive light; it was just him and his friend being silly little kids. He experienced no heightened levels of deviance and felt he was mentally and emotionally sound.

As far as abuses go, I consider myself lucky. Yes, lucky. "Gasp! But how?!" The only way to answer that is to explain a bit: I was abused as a very young child by an individual very close to me. I don't remember the actual abuse, which I am thankful for, but I recall the before, and after. What followed was my period of repression (and unexplained behaviour, the "acting out" stage of my childhood), remembrance of the event, and then acceptance. I won't go into detail regarding the event, but I will address the repression, remembrance and acceptance.

Repression: in psychoanalytic theory, the basic defence mechanism that banishes anxiety-arousing thoughts, feelings, and memories from consciousness. This was one of Freud's theories, and while I typically dismiss Freud (by way of example, Freud later explained that our lust for our other-sex parent isn't remembered due to repression), this is one I do accept, having experienced it myself. Most people believe repression does occur, but a load of memory researches disbelieve in the regular happening of repression. Given the population of our planet, however, "rarely" becomes less rare. Back to it, Freud did say that with patience and effort, the repression could be broken into and the memory retrieved later, either by a cue or during therapy. While I did undergo therapy, it was not while in a session with some brain-picker that my repression was breached. When I remember it, I often think of the repression as being something like a wall, concealing the memory from my consciousness. Remembrance occurred when that wall, for whatever reason, was removed.

After having the event repression, I knew, without knowing what had happened, that something was wrong. Something happened to me that wasn't right, and in my confusion I acted out: I hid under my bed, almost daily, before being awoken for school; I refused to participate in class, to write tests; I became disinterested in spending time with previously close friends and would get into fights. After my parents separated, I began attending a new school, but I continued to act out. While I was deviant in the traditional ways, it was only in minor degrees. I figured at the time that the way I was acting was just a reflection of what people did. It wasn't until my remembrance of the abuse that I realized it was the cause of my deviance.

I am not a traditional survivor of abuse, but I don't hold myself up as some kind of beacon that all other victims and survivors 'ought to look to for guidance. I believe, were it not for my introduction to and acceptance of my faith, I would have ended up as a traditional statistic of child abuse.

You may have noticed that I started using the word "survivor", as well as "victim". Our perceptions are important, they enable us to define ourselves, which I believe is more important than how others would define us. Victims are acted upon, while survivors act. Victims are defined by what others have done to them, while a survivor has taken that experience and added into their chronicle of events that have helped shape who they are.

There's a scripture in the New Testament that says that "... God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Let's take the word tempt and look at it with its obsolete meaning: to try, or to test. So, like a good math professor who wouldn't give an AP calculus test to his eighth grade students, God is not going to laden us with a test that is beyond our capabilities. To be able to deal with the test, to handle it, God supplies us with a way. This scripture has always meant a great deal to me for this reason. Yes, I was abused, and it was horrible and awful and shouldn't have happened, but it did. It, along with many, many other experiences, have shaped who I am. While I don't see myself speaking to my abuser again in the future, I wouldn't change the past even if I could.

The Transition: Man of God to Fraud

Although the title makes it sound like I've lost my marbles and gone apostate, I've not, rather I thought I'd publish something that's been weighing on my mind for the last little while.

There's a person in my life who is very dear to me. Not unusual. This person had an experience with their Priesthood leaders, and instead of viewing that experience as one from which they could grow and improve, they have turned it into a catalyst from which bitterness, anger and self-pity have festered. I won't identify this person in any way more than I already have.

Often in someone's life when they experience something that draws them into some form of depression, their progression stops. What tends to happen is they end up holing away, shying away from situations where they have be social. This isn't uncommon for people, even those who don't experience clinical depression, who just have a bad day. Some people seek out others who are equally miserable, and others simply become a recluse.

While I'm on the point, not only do miserable people group together to bolster the reasons for which they're upset, but people who share a common belief or hobby do the same thing. A simple example of this is a club. We do this for the same reason above, to bolster each other, and encourage one another. If you're doing something that is "wrong," on the basic, non-religious levels, you'll tend to spend your time with others who are doing that same thing. Why? It's much easier to justify your wrong behaviour if you're around others who are also looking to justify themselves.

I'm going to use an example to illustrate the point of this post. Often in the Church, when someone finds fault with their leaders, it's because the leader has asked the member to do something they don't want to do, or because the leader told the member something they didn't want to hear. People don't like being wrong - that's a basic fact of humanity. When a member receives chastisement, they can take it one of two ways: they can either listen to the advice they're given and humbly submit to the will of the Lord as revealed through that leader, or they can convince themselves that the leader is wrong, that they don't need to listen to their advice, that they're flawed, that for some reason that leader got it wrong.

Which is easier? To change, or to manufacture some excuse that saves you from having to change? Personally, I try to embrace change. As a writer I have the opportunity to create any kind of characters I want. Certain characters are frowned upon, and these are known as static characters. These characters are the ones that never change, there is no character arc for them, they are the same on the last page of the book as they are on the first. To live such a life, I couldn't imagine.

But anyway, tangent aside, let's get some illustration in here. This will be specific and vague all at once, you'll see (and be impressed).

A member goes to their Priesthood leader and tells that leader of the problems they're having. They tell their leader (Bishop, Stake President, etc.) of their abilities and their weaknesses, and then asks for advice, they ask for counsel and direction. The leader thinks about it a moment, and then tells the member that they're loved and appreciated, that they're doing well enough in all areas of their life but one. This one area is known to the member as one of their major weaknesses, and is therefore a sensitive topic, but because the member asked, the leader directs them and tells them that to better serve the Lord (in this example), they need to improve their life in that area. Once the member has improved themselves to a certain point, they're to return to the leader and receive more council.

Now, like I said, this member can either humbly submit themselves to the counsel that was given, or they can come up with some reason to excuse themselves from having to listen to the direction they were given. Let's say that this member chooses the latter. They decide that their leader hasn't got the right to say what they did about their very personal weakness.

This is where I draw my illustration into the story of that very dear person I know. At the beginning of the story I just went through, the member went to their leader. The Bishop or Stake President didn't show up at the member's house and start chastising them, the member went to the leader. By doing so, and by asking for direction, they showed a confidence in that leader's abilities, they demonstrated a trust in that leader, a trust that he was a man of God.

So here's my quandary: At what point did that man cease to be a man of God?

A member goes to their leader, showing humility and a desire to listen to the counsel they would receive (why else would they bother asking?), but after their meeting, it's been decided by that member that the man they went to advice for is no longer called of God. So at what point did this leader who had formerly been considered a man of God cease being so? It never actually happened, save in the mind of the member, and it occurred when that member decided they knew more than him.

Although I love this individual with all my heart, I cannot understand why they would be, at one moment, completely willing to listen and to follow whatever Church leaders told them, whether is was to give a talk, receive a calling in Primary, or to serve a foreign-speaking mission to Japan for 1.5-2 years; and later have decided that those same leaders they trusted, literally with their life, were wrong.

I don't understand it, but I know the underlying answer to my "why" questions. Pride. This individual couldn't stand having someone tell them they couldn't do something because they wouldn't be able to handle it. It boggles my mind. If a prophet of God, or someone I revered as a man of God as called by the prophet, told me I needed to do X in order to be able to do Y, I would do it. Why? Personally, because I've learned through hard experiences that my leaders tend to have the gift of foresight; when I think I see the big picture, I'm often seeing it head-on and not from their perspective, which is often a birds-eye view.

So, has that leader really gone from being a man of God to being a fraud? Only in the mind of that one individual. And what will that individual do? They'll flock to others who think the exact same so they can pat themselves on the shoulder and tell each other how justified they are in condemning that leader. Truly, a separation of the wheat from the chaff.

"They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father... But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they." Mormon 5:16,18