Elizabeth Smart back in SLC again

[_Pahoran]

Call for references, please; where have I used this kind of cheap demagoguery "to attack others on a regular basis?"

CFR that you've ever NOT used cheap demagoguery.

Your buddy "Inconceivable" is the accuser; he bears the burden of proof.

And as grateful as he no doubt is for your efforts in his behalf, you're not going to shift it to me. Sorry.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

CFR that you've ever NOT used cheap demagoguery.

Your buddy "Inconceivable" is the accuser; he bears the burden of proof.

And as grateful as he no doubt is for your efforts in his behalf, you're not going to shift it to me. Sorry.

Regards,
Pahoran

Couldn't find even one post, eh?

[_Pahoran]

Perhaps if he wasn't a Mormon, you'd be able to see him as a loving father being supportive of a daughter who has been through an ordeal far beyond the capabilities of your diseased imagination to understand.

But since he is a Mormon, then for you, and all the other vile little Mormon-haters, that isn't even within the bounds of possibility.

Can you repeat that to me but do it in a Harry Potter Snape face? Pretty please? Meanwhile, I'll clean your spittle off my screen.

I'm a diseased vile little Mormon hater! I'll drink to that.

I'm sure you will. It's important to not be ashamed of who you are.

Doesn't it just piss you off to no end that you can't slam down the ban hammer here, you vile little Anti-Mormon hater? I mean, diseased vile little Anti-Mormon hater, you, you you...

As I have already pointed out: contrary to the evidence-free speculation that passes for discussion around here, I don't have a "ban hammer" anywhere.

Ed Smart has always trotted his daughter out in front of the media. He has continually reinforced into Elizabeth's head that nothing is wrong, all is well, all is forgiven.

And you say that like it's a bad thing. What, if anything, could Ed Smart have done that would win your approval?

Tell us, Infymus: what sort of message should he have "continually reinforced into Elizabeth's head?" That she's damaged, or something?

Why don't you just come out and admit that if it wasn't for the fact that he's a Mormon, you'd find his support for his daughter to be a good thing?

Or aren't you capable of seeing past the fact that he's a Mormon, so that taints everything he does in your eyes?

She got a choice, cushy mission where the church trotted her out to play the harp in the middle of a crowded square where nobody really gave a damn.

Again, you say that like it's a bad thing. What, if anything, could the Church have done that would win your approval? Let her scrub floors in an orphanage instead?

And now he continues to stand behind her, parroting words into her mouth.

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

I know precisely what you'd say if Ed wasn't there supporting her. You'd say that he'd kicked her to the curb because there's nothing in it for him any more. He'd be damned if he do, and damned if he don't.

I want Elizabeth to get angry.

And how do you know she hasn't? How do you know she hasn't worked through that, and gotten over it? How many years should she let her anger fester, in order to satisfy you?

I want her to say "f*** you Mitchel!" But it won't happen.

Of course not.

She's better than you.

Mormonism reinforces burying emotions, burying feelings, pretending that it is all O K, always putting on a happy face, always with the appearances.

Wouldn't surprise me if she lives the rest of her life on Prozac as so many Mormons do.

Whereas if she became an ex-Mormon, she'd be as serene and at peace with the world as, say, you?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_sock puppet]

I see Joseph's OP a bit differently than most of those who have already responded. Elizabeth Smart did endure a horrible ordeal. In the years since she has been away from BDM, we're told repeatedly by Ed Smart how she's moved on and foregiven BDM, and now serving an LDS mission.

Few if any LDS missionaries have no reason to come home for something during their two years or 18 months. I know I would like to have attended a funeral or a wedding. The rule was simply that you put these other matters of life on hold 'while serving the Lord.' There is no assessment of the emotional toll that not returning might take on the individual.

There are two sets of LDS rules. Those for the famous, and those for everyone else. Johnny Miller played golf on Sunday. Ironically, it was okay because that was his work, and he was touted by the LDS Church as a Mormon celebrity. Of course there are others, like Steve Young. And by the way, they knew very well when they chose to pursue those fields that it involved breaking the sabbath.

Donny Osmond was an able bodied male that did not go on a mission.

The Marriotts could hold TRs while reaping millions off of liquor sales at their hotel bars, but if John Doe was a bartender at the Salt Lake City Marriott so he could pay the mortgage on a modest house for himself and kids, he could not have a TR.

Elizabeth Smart was allowed to return to her home to testify and then attend sentencing hearings.

If her name was Jane Doe, she'd been kidnapped and held for months when she was 14, and now her captors were being tried, Jane would have not missed a missionary day to go to Hurricane UT and testify against the kidnapper.

It is the Church of the Double Standard, and that was the point I took from the OP.

[_stemelbow]

If her name was Jane Doe, she'd been kidnapped and held for months when she was 14, and now her captors were being tried, Jane would have not missed a missionary day to go to Hurricane UT and testify against the kidnapper.

It is the Church of the Double Standard, and that was the point I took from the OP.

I don't think your posts makes any sense at all. But, its good to see that so many critics here aren't so drowned in their hostility to take the Joseph or SP position on this. Somehow this whole episode is another way for SP to complain about the Church. Oh boy. This is sad commentary, SP. Please get over it already.

[_Pahoran]

You stupid s*** for brains! She was a 14 year old girl. They held her captive, they played head games with her, plied her with alcohol, she was raped on a daily basis...

who died and left you judge/jury of what a 14 year old girl should do while being held against her will or how a parent should react?

Why one Richard G. Scott, Jersey Girl.

The Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed.

Call for references, please.

Here's one that I found:

http://LDS.org/general-conference/2002/10/to-be-free-of-heavy-burdens?lang=eng

Now to you who have been scarred by the ugly sin of abuse. Mental, physical, or sexual abuse can cause serious, enduring consequences unless healed by the Lord. They may include fear, depression, guilt, self-hatred, and a deepening lack of trust in others that becomes a barrier to healing. Your abuse results from another’s unrighteous attack on your moral agency against your will. In justice, the Lord has provided a way for you to overcome the destructive consequences of abuse. That relief can begin with the counsel of parents, priesthood leaders, and, when needed, the help of competent professionals. Yet you need not experience a lifetime of counseling. Complete healing will come through your faith in Jesus Christ and His power and capacity, through His Atonement, to heal the scars of that which is unjust and undeserved. You may find that hard to believe with your current feelings. I have witnessed how the Savior has healed aggravated cases of abuse in that way. Ponder the power of the Atonement. 12 Pray to understand how it can heal you. 13 Seek the aid of your bishop so that the Lord can free you of a burden you did not originate.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

http://emp.byui.edu/STOKESS/study/scott.htm

[_Pahoran]

There are two sets of LDS rules. Those for the famous, and those for everyone else. Johnny Miller played golf on Sunday. Ironically, it was okay because that was his work, and he was touted by the LDS Church as a Mormon celebrity. Of course there are others, like Steve Young. And by the way, they knew very well when they chose to pursue those fields that it involved breaking the sabbath.

So did my bishop, when he joined the police force. He's not famous. How does the Church treat him differently than Steve Young?

Donny Osmond was an able bodied male that did not go on a mission.

There are dozens of able bodied males in my ward who did not serve missions. Your point?

The Marriotts could hold TRs while reaping millions off of liquor sales at their hotel bars, but if John Doe was a bartender at the Salt Lake City Marriott so he could pay the mortgage on a modest house for himself and kids, he could not have a TR.

Call for references, please, that an active Church member working as a bartender cannot have a Temple Recommend.

Elizabeth Smart was allowed to return to her home to testify and then attend sentencing hearings.

If her name was Jane Doe, she'd been kidnapped and held for months when she was 14, and now her captors were being tried, Jane would have not missed a missionary day to go to Hurricane UT and testify against the kidnapper.

Huh?

Before she was kidnapped, Elizabeth Smart was "Jane Doe." She's famous only because of her ordeal. Thus, any "Jane Doe" would have become famous in the same way.

It is the Church of the Double Standard, and that was the point I took from the OP.

It seems to be the "point" you want to see.

But that's okay. You and "Joseph" are birds of a feather, after all.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_consiglieri]

Simon, are you angling to be the subject of a 60-page thread dedicated to your vulgarities?

You need to accept the fact that the double standard is thoroughly institutionalised here, and post accordingly.

Thank you so much, Joseph, for giving Pahoran the false comparison he has been yearning for.

[_Pahoran]

http://emp.byui.edu/STOKESS/study/scott.htm

Thank you. Let us consider some excerpts from that talk, and see whether Infymus has fairly and accurately reported on what it says.

You may feel threatened by one who is in a position of power or control over you. You may feel trapped and see no escape. Please believe that your Heavenly Father does not want you to be held captive by unrighteous influence, by threats of reprisal, or by fear of repercussion to the family member who abuses you. Trust that the Lord will lead you to a solution. Ask in faith, nothing doubting. (See James 1:6; Enos 1:15; Moro. 7:26; D&C 8:10; D&C 18:18.)

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. You may be left scarred by abuse, but those scars need not be permanent. In the eternal plan, in the Lord’s timetable, those injuries can be made right as you do your part. Here is what you can do now.

Emphasis per the original. I could in fact show more in the same vein, but let us look at the bit that Infymus has chosen to excerpt. Here's how he quoted it:

The Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed.

That looks nice and pat, doesn't it? The complete thought, nothing left out? Well, let's see how Elder Scott said it:

The victim must do all in his or her power to stop the abuse. Most often, the victim is innocent because of being disabled by fear or the power or authority of the offender. At some point in time, however, the Lord may prompt a victim to recognize a degree of responsibility for abuse. Your priesthood leader will help assess your responsibility so that, if needed, it can be addressed. Otherwise the seeds of guilt will remain and sprout into bitter fruit. Yet no matter what degree of responsibility, from absolutely none to increasing consent, the healing power of the atonement of Jesus Christ can provide a complete cure. (See D&C 138:1-4.) Forgiveness can be obtained for all involved in abuse. (See A of F 1:3.) Then comes a restoration of self-respect, self-worth, and a renewal of life.

So it turns out that the infamous "Infymus" quote was ripped out of its context, even in mid-sentence. Would Infymus ever have supplied the missing context without which Elder Scott's statement cannot be judged fairly? Would Buffalo, who already knew it?

Evidently not.

The fact is that Infymus' cynical and dishonest quote mining intentionally misrepresents what Elder Scott was saying. Well, I'm sure he and Buffalo will drink to that.

Note that this talk, with its heavily qualified and ring-fenced mention of responsibility, was given in 1992. The talk I quoted was given ten years later. Anyone who, reading Infymus' carefully decontextualised snippet, believed that it represented any part of Elder Scott's present position, has been most infamously deceived.

Regards,
Pahoran