Grim trivia: it was actually Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid. The Kool-Aid folks made sure that info got to the press.
In many countries, such as our neighbors to the north and south, she would at 14 be of the age of consent for sexual intercourse.
I think you mean the opposite, that you could not care less.
Well I guess if you are a parent in these places, you have to parent faster.
I think you mean the opposite, that you could not care less.
Are you putting words in my mouth? 
I could care less. I could not care less. Have I been saying this incorrectly my whole life? I have never said, “I could not care less”. But that is what I meant. I think. Usually.
Oh well, I could care less. But I won’t. Off to MPIMS.
I really hope her parent’s have the foresight to not let her see the media or internet. I just keep picturing her surfing the web and coming upon a debate like this.
cadolphin:
Please provide proof that the church’s position at that time is different from the actual doctrines I quoted above. Bear in mind that the attitude of some people in the church does not constitute church doctrine. I’ve been a member for just over 20 years and I’ve always heard the church doctrine as being what I quoted above.
Please provide proof, also, if you don’t mind, that there was a different version of Kimball’s teaching published by an authorized source.
Your Branch President then was an incompetent for doing what he did. Also, you must’ve known then that, just like for the entire history of the church and up to this very moment, you could’ve gone to the next higher level, or even all the way to the top, to have that reviewed.
This discussion is not off topic, btw. The OP asked if there was something odd about the case and a few people responded with, essentially, “Heck yes. Those Mormons are odd so it’s her fault or her family’s fault or her church’s fault.” What you related above plays into the hands of thsoe who seek to blame the church, her family, or even her for what happened to her.
Walloon: It’s completely irrelevant what the age of consent is elsewhere. The fact is that girl is in a particular area where, by law, she does not have that ability. And even if she were not under age, the facts as presented in the indictment show that there was no consent.
I don’t think it’s completely irrelevant, Monty. Psychologically, the age of 14/15 is a gray area on the ability to consent to sexual activity. In some U.S. states, girls that age can marry. Some girls that age are able to make that choice, some are not. You said she lacks the ability to have consentual relations with not just her captor, but “an adult,” a very broad allegation. Do you know her?
Indictments make allegations, not facts. The courts decide what is factual, not the prosecution, nor you nor I.
Once again, Monty, I’m going to ask for some lightening up, please. Sensitive issues here. And if I was 18, I don’t know that it would occur to me to talk to the Stake President or whoever.
cadolphin, you certainly have my sympathy. I don’t pretend to know what general attitudes in the Church were when I was a toddler, and I’m inclined to think your bishop was like an awful lot of people back then. Date rape was not usually considered rape at all (as I’m sure you know far better than I do), and all I can say is thank goodness times have changed.
However, I think that whatever site Rico took his quote from changed the wording. The ellipsis would seem to show that something was left out, and I am unconvinced that the text in its entirety ever read that way. I would have appreciated a ‘mea culpa’ from him, but at least he’s learned to check his sources more carefully. It did, however, bring up questions from others, which I hope have been answered satisfactorily. So hopefully we can let it go.
[nitpick]Everybody, it’s consensual not “consentual.”[/nitpick]
carry on.
genie: Neither time was I not light towards the issue I was addressing.
Cadolphin also has my sympathy. & the branch president at the time was a fool. I thought I’d made that clear when I called him an incompetent.
Walloon: It’s exactly irrelevant. Otherwise you wouldn’t be citing another jurisdiction’s laws to address Utah’s laws. Please read what I wrote, if you don’t mind. I said that the indictment showed that there was no consent involved.
It was never the church’s position. The quote I provided was from the first and only edition of the book “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” There have been multiple printings, but no second edition. I have no reason to believe that the quote was changed in successive printings. Indeed, the quote Rico copied had ellipsis where the relevent portions were (if there ever were a printing that had omitted the qualifying phrases, it would be plastered everywhere on every anti-Mormon website in existence). You’ll note that I said:
You’re confirming the part that I put in boldface, and which I actually thought was more likely.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I when it comes down to it, I object far less to someone who disagrees with my religion than to someone who publishes misinformation about it. Get the information right, then disagree if you want, but at least get the information right.
Like Monty everything I’ve seen, heard and read is that it was never “it is better to have died defending yourself than be raped” but rather “it is better to have died defending yourself than not having done anything at all.” There has been no change of position by the LDS church.
In your case, I don’t know (and don’t want to know–it’s not my business) all the details, but it has been my observation that date rape wasn’t treated as seriously in the 70’s as rape by an unknown assailant. I think US culture turned a blind eye to it for a long time. (On preview, I notice that genie has already made this point.)
It is important to remember that the local branches and wards are led by men who are not perfect. Unlike Monty, I’m not going to condemn your branch president because I’ve only heard your side of an event that happened 30 years ago. It is possible he misunderstood church doctrine or policy on the issue. It is also possible that he didn’t believe your story (I’m making no judgement on your account, so please don’t think that I’m calling you a liar or something like that).
In the Elizabeth Smart case, it’s pretty clear that any sexual encounter was initiated by force, under threat. Her bishop has already concluded that her agency was removed, and hence she is not morally responsible.
Now a question is how she will recover personally, and how people will treat her. Even though she had no choice in the matter, she may be treated as “damaged goods” (I hate that phrase) by people in or out of LDS circles. And indeed, the trauma she went through will make it impossible for her to be just as she was before–she will most likely have moments when something she sees or hears will trigger a horrible memory, and her friends or family will wonder what they said to make her sad. Hopefully she can recover as much as possible. Hopefully she will have a long and happy life, with perhaps the ability to help others who have gone through traumatic experiences. But it is not, nor has it ever been LDS doctrine or policy that a victim of evil deeds is evil himself or herself.
emarkp:
The bone I have with that branch president is in the way the issue was handled. The church, just like any other large organization, has a(n) heirarchy and when one level of that heirarchy does something along the lines of discipline, then that issue is supposed to be “kicked up” so that the next level can ensure it’s done correctly. The most important part of the review is to ensure that whatever action the first level recommended is correct. It appears that the branch president didn’t do it right. That’s all I’m saying.
An indictment contains allegations. it doesn’t “show” that no consent was involved, it alleges. That is for the courts to decide, not the D.A.'s office. Or you or me.
Walloon:
Are you intentionally trying to post annoying and ridiculous comments are do you not understand what the kidnapper already admitted to?
What, exactly, is it that you don’t understand about a minor cannot legally consent?
Correct that first sentence’s second ‘are’ to read ‘or’ and you’ll have what I meant to type.
Folks, when I was 15 years old, I was a devoutly religious, very naive girl in a small town. If I had been kidnapped and the kidnappers were threatening my family, I think I would have tried to protect them anyway I could including by doing what the kidnappers wanted. Remember, Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped in front of her little sister. I can see how she might think that, whatever was happening to her, it would be worse for it to happen to her little sister, especially if she was led to believe it was her fault for not cooperating. That alone to me would be a powerful incentive for doing what the kidnappers wanted.
Also, if someone did manage to convince me he had moral/religious authority over me, whether by brainwashing or strength of arguement, that would be another incentive for me to cooperate, and I’m Episcopalian.
CJ
At best, perhaps Elizabeth suffered from Stockholm Syndrom. HOwever, that wouldn’t make it her fault.
Unlike emarkp and Monty, I’ve had no contact with LDS officialdom or doctrine. I have only anecdotal observations, so I’ll have to base my opinions on unreliable information.
I’ve known four apparently devout Morman families, some from thirty or more years ago. Most are basically pretty good people. Outwardly no worse or better than my godless self.
But I’ve got to say that their actions and attitudes fell much closer to what is described by others on this thread (cadolphin, etc) than to the ideals related by emarkp and Monty.
Maybe the scripture and laws and such really haven’t changed, but the application of them, in my very limited experience, has.
Where there’s smoke, there’s almost surely fire guys.
BTW; how much seriously anti-Mornan sentiment was actually expressed here, anyway? Somebody said Mormans are wierd? Gimme a break.
What happened to Elizabeth Smart had nothing to do with her religion.
Check this out. Monty even give’s us instructions on how to correct his mistake.
mangeorge - It’s Mormon.
FWIIW, I am not LDS. I am a small minority here in Utah where almost everyone, my coworkers, neighbors, some family members, are member of the church.
I don’t see them as being more odd or bizarre than any other group of people. If I had to put my finger on a difference, I would say they are kinder, more generous, and (to their deteriment) a little bit too trusting and naive. They don’t have legs growing from their heads nor are they purple. They are just regular people like you and I.
Just what is it that makes some of you believe the Mormons are so strange? I mean beside all of the off the wall and untrue statements that have been flung around this thread.
I really an interested in knowing.
The more I learn about the details of this case, the more I want to withdraw my implication that Ms. Smart may have been a willing participant.