Runtu wrote:harmony wrote:I never understand why she insists that Helen didn't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. It's like she's never heard of Patti Hearst.
I suggested in response that a person's attitude toward what happens to him or her in no way determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. I gave the example of my grandfather, who willingly gave tens of thousands of dollars to a fraudulent television ministry, to the point where he didn't have enough money for food or medicine. And more than one apologist suggested that in some strange way, my grandfather's actions were right. Bizarre. Either way, I wasn't talking about whether my grandpa did right but rather whether the hucksters who took his money did. In the same way, that Helen later defended polygamy does not in any way determine the rightness or intent of Joseph's actions.
I would think that self-evident. Apparently not.
It is self-evident in the case of your grandfather. Anyone can see that he was taken advantage of, and can rightly condemn the people who perpetuated the fraud.
On the other hand, it's Joseph you're talking about. Joseph is like teflon, nothing sticks. And the reason nothing sticks has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of his message or his methods; it has to much more to do with the investment. When people dedicate their whole life to something, they often refuse to apply criticial thinking skills to it, especially if they were born into it.