Elizabeth Smart back in SLC again

[Guest]

Thanks Pahoran for clearing up the quote that Infymus brought. As it was, left without context, it was pretty misleading. Good job.

[_stemelbow]

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

Consig, I hate to say it but every once in a while your posts come off as overly vindictive. Most here seem to agree with Pahoran in that Joseph went too far with this (to put it mildly) but here you come to take a shot a Pahoran instead--nevermind Pahoran's snarky comment about the Schryver thread, which thread someone's going to have to acknowledge at some point is over the top.

that's too bad.

[_sock puppet]

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?

Really? Your bishop found a job as a cop that pays him for working but one day a week, the sabbath? I'll be damned, I should have become a cop. By the way, crime happens all 7 days a week. The PGA and NFL--the organizations that Miller and Young respectively chose--could have avoided Sundays, now couldn't they? Don't see much choice in a local government wanting to 'protect and serve' having the choice to do so just Monday-Saturday.

Pahoran, try coming up with a better analogy next time. That sucking sound you hear about now is likely similar to the one the Titanic made on as it slipped beneath the cold Atlantic's surface.

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?

Does the prophet hoist on petard each of those in your ward that you mention, like they have the Osmonds? Wow, another spot on analogy, Pahoran. I thought you could do better than this.

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.

A friend of mine who will remain nameless, as he is blameless and it is your lame Church that is at fault in promoting such double standards, including a 'special one' for the rich and wealthy--you know the one, The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, another simply drove a beer truck from an A-B distributor to convenience store to serve beer and wine and was denied on that basis 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.

Huh?

Exactly, Pahoran. Huh? Why would the non-celebrity victim be treated differently than the celebrity victim? That elohim of yours, funny guy. He's a big respecter of persons.

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.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Step right down, Pahoran, and get your prize. And now, explain to us why some kids only get on the back of a milk carton for a month or two in seven or eight years of missing after being abducted and Ed Smart made a celebrity of his daughter (I applaud him for doing so until she was recovered, and I'm abhorred he still does so since. Good to see good-brother Ed making the most (i.e., milking) it for all he can.)

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

Flocks are an unusual thing, Pahoran. But unlike sheep, few birds will follow another to their disaster.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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

Really? The point I took from the OP is that Joseph is starting another nasty thread, this one objectionable on more levels than his usual vulgar perspectives.

It is the church of the double standard, no argument, but why take it out on Elizabeth?

[_asbestosman]

This OP disgusts me.

Elizabeth Smart is an activist. Publicity is likely seen as a positive thing since she can use it to shine light on the issues faced by survivors of violence.

I'm glad she was able to be a witness in the trial. I wish that all missionaries were encouraged to take a break for their mission to attend important things like funerals, weddings, etc.

I wish Elizabeth every happiness life can offer.

+ aleph_0

I hope Joseph gets kidnapped--by aliens who perform weird experiments on his body including maybe transplanting a working brain and a heart into his hollow shell of a body.

[_Buffalo]

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

Sorry, there is no context that saves that vile, filthy statement. Blaming the victim is something only sick person would do.

[_consiglieri]

Most here seem to agree with Pahoran in that Joseph went too far with this (to put it mildly) but here you come to take a shot a Pahoran instead--nevermind Pahoran's snarky comment about the Schryver thread, which thread someone's going to have to acknowledge at some point is over the top.

The main point I take away from this thread is that Pahoran (and others, including you) are mistaken in the assertion that members of this board will tolerate any language used against the LDS Church, but only get their knickers in a twist when it is Will Schryver at fault.

This thread effectively refutes that notion.

Case closed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_asbestosman]

Blaming the victim is something only sick person would do.

A recently read a story about a man who stole a laptop from a store and bumped into some marines. The marines detained him so he stuck a knife in of their backs. The guy ended up with a multitude of broken bones and missing teeth when he "fell down the curb". Of course, we all know that by "fell down the curb" we mean the marines beat the snot out of the fool.

Now in a sense, this man is clearly a victim of violence. Some rough handling was certainly justified due to the danger he posed. However, the immediate danger would have been easily removed after taking his weapons and pinning him down.

Now the million dollar question Buffalo: Is this victim to share the blame for what happened to him?



May I suggest that the problem isn't that victims never share blame, but rather that victims of sexual crimes never share blame for being assaulted?

The second problem--and the one where we likely part--is that you do not see any issue with sexual anything between consenting adults. So if, for example, a girl consented to one sexual act but did not consent to another the only issue at all is that she was raped for the act she didn't consent to. Now, I agree that nothing she did makes her share any blame for being a victim of rape. Stay with me on my point before lambasting me for blaming the victim. Rape is a horrible ordeal and victims do not share any blame for it--ever. However, the fact that she was raped does not absolve her of the responsibility she has for the sexual acts she DID consent to before she was raped or threatened. Does that make sense to you? My guess is that it's nonsense because there is no such thing as sexual sin in your eyes, only sexual crime--something for which victims are not to blame. How far off the mark am I?

[_Infymus]

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.

Pissy pissy. Were these your forums, you'd ban and you know it.

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

Quit trotting his daughter out into the spotlight. When she wants to speak or be heard, he should stay out of the picture. She’s an adult now, let’s hear her opinion - her words. I don’t believe she is saying what she really wants to say. It’s what she has been taught to do, which is hold it inside, have a perfect outside, forgive and forget it ever happened.

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?

Whoever said that Ed being Mormon had anything to do with this? Oh right, I’m Ex-Mormon and therefore in your mind (as well as your fellow Mormons) I hate everything Mormon. Gotcha. Sigh. You Mormons and your visualization of Ex-Mormons as demons. Whatever it takes to help you stay sweet Pahoran.

Church have done that would win your approval? Let her scrub floors in an orphanage instead?

I never said I wanted to see Elizabeth scrub floors. Again you keep acting like I hate and loathe her just because she's Mormon. She's had special treatment. She got a cushy mission. Can I prove she got a cushy mission? No. It’s just my opinion.

But this isn't about that is it Pahoran, you just have an axe to grind because I'm NOT Mormon therefore you think I'm just straight up a Mormon hater. Maybe Pahoran, I just secretly hate you.

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.

And your evidence that I would say that is? Accuse me of not having evidence and then making the same blanket statement about me? And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

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 don’t know, they don’t talk about it. For once I’d really love to hear HER story, not the one her father or her cult requires her to say.

Again, why the hostility Pahoran? Do you really think I’m sitting here secretly wishing that Elizabeth would melt down? No, I’m not.

I feel sorry for her because the religion she has been brought up has been used against her. My childhood background is very similar to what she faced for a short period of time – except mine lasted 14 years. One does not just pray for it to go away – and you can talk about forgiveness all day long but it never goes away.

Like I said above, I don’t believe she is saying what she wants or needs to say. And if she suddenly broke down and ranted about what a damned asshole prick Mitchell was, I wouldn’t be pointing the finger at her laughing at the ballistic Mormon – no, I’d give her the thumbs up and say “You go girl! Tell that asshole off for what he did.” I’d certainly do the same were I to see those who did the same things to me as a child.

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?

Again with Mormons and your perceived view of people you don't know from Adam. How do you know my world isn't peaceful and serene Pahoran? How do you know that I don’t wake up every morning with rainbows coming out of my ass? Like the rest of you Mormons who think that once you cross that line and go Ex and suddenly become hateful, vengeful assholes – well, get over it.

I do find it amusing to watch you melting down with caustic accusatory verbiage. If being Mormon is being like you, I’d sure miss the rainbows coming out of my ass.

Pahoran. Go back to your little protected board and take your meds before you burst.

[_Buffalo]

May I suggest that the problem isn't that victims never share blame, but rather that victims of sexual crimes never share blame for being assaulted?

The second problem--and the one where we likely part--is that you do not see any issue with sexual anything between consenting adults. So if, for example, a girl consented to one sexual act but did not consent to another the only issue at all is that she was raped for the act she didn't consent to. Now, I agree that nothing she did makes her share any blame for being a victim of rape. Stay with me on my point before lambasting me for blaming the victim. Rape is a horrible ordeal and victims do not share any blame for it--ever. However, the fact that she was raped does not absolve her of the responsibility she has for the sexual acts she DID consent to before she was raped or threatened. Does that make sense to you? My guess is that it's nonsense because there is no such thing as sexual sin in your eyes, only sexual crime--something for which victims are not to blame. How far off the mark am I?

You're taking two separate issues and irrationally forcing them together. If a girl consents to a sexual act, that has nothing to do with being victimized later. Let's say she consented to oral sex, but then was sodomized against her will. Her consent and later victimization are two separate issues. She is not responsible for being sodomized, even if you think the oral sex was sinful. She is not responsible for the sodomy. Two seperate issues.

That's not really any different from blaming a rape victim for wearing a skimpy outfit.