Link to the pit thread SDMB Assholes aka mass ignorance on the SDMB started by kp_72110.
That’s a rather sweeping generalization about the Mormon faith, to put it mildly. Whatever you think about the Smarts, it’s not fair to categorize a whole religion that way (I am not Mormon, but I do object to calling people religious freaks because they are.)
I don’t pretend to know what that family is going through, and I can’t pass judgement on any member for how they are or are not reacting to all of this. I think Mr. Smart is very happy to have his daughter back, and I commend him for using their inevitable publicity to push for a national Amber Alert.
Beyond anything else, I think there’s something really bizarre about the father, and I felt that way the minute I saw him talking on t.v. (this was before the harp incident) I can’t put my finger on it, but I couldn’t help wondering what he does for a living, he was incredibly creepy in manner, I couldn’t imagine anyone dealing with him. I’ve never had such a strong reaction to someone on t.v. By comparison his brother seemed normal, but the dad was just so wrong somehow. Completely phoney and beyond. Scary. Coupled with the mysterious circumstances surrounding this kidnapping it makes me wonder what goes on in that house. (why did the kid sister wait 2 HOURS to report the kidnapping, being 9 doesn’t mean you’re mentally crippled)
Oh for the last freaking time, unless there is some uniform standard for demeanor and behavior of the parents of a child who was returned after a stranger abduction then how can you judge Mr. Smart as acting improperly?
None of us have any idea what’s going on in these people’s minds and hearts or what emotional storms are happening where they belong – in the privacy of their home, church, community and other behind-closed-doors sorts of places. We simply do not know.
This wild speculation is insulting and pathetic.
Doonerak:
Picture this: Provide some proof of your accusation against Mr. Smart et al of the heinous crimes you just accused them of.
Better yet: DON’T MAKE FALSE ACCUSATIONS! You have no proof, other than what you’ve decided is true without evidence. That is not proof.
One thing will not happen. A rape charge. That will be official confirmation of what we all suspect, therefore it will not happen. The Aggravated Kidnapping charge will be deemed to suffice.
One thing will happen. A book/movie deal. The family enjoys the spotlight too much for this temptation to be resisted. You disagree? Consider this. Most normal families would have grudgingly consented to a press conference without the victim present and then shut the door to the media. Not these folks. The Amber alert advocacy is just the beginning of the “We are very special and deserve the attention” mindset.
Claim to authority, based merely on location, not actual knowledge.
Claim to authority, based merely on acquaintanceship, not actual knowledge.
False statement disguised as reporting of actual events.
Speculation tossed in among false statement, thus an attempt to mislead the reader that the speculation has a basis in fact.
So what?
More speculation; said speculation that can only be based on a particular prejudice held by the person so speculating.
More speculation, thinly disguised.
To call that posting of yours “thought” is laughable. It is the exact antithesis of thought.
For your edification, I went to dictionary.com and fetched “antithesis” as the best alternative for the word “antonym.” Here is the full list of the words that site’s thesaurus provided. Feel free to select one or more of the other choices as being further descriptive of that so-called thoughtful posting.
Monty, try looking up “tact” 
You seem to be reading more into that post you parse than its poster intended, such as the alleged “claims to authority”. You’re on the right track with the speculation part, but by viewing the other statements as “claims to authority” you somehow feel that this speculation is being “disguised”, thinly at some times.
Then you go into that “thought” rant, but most other posters here took that post for what it was: just some thoughts, and speculation based on a person’s limited experiences.
Well, I didn’t particularly like the line about Mr. Smart being a weird guy, but I read Doonerak’s post in a completely different light.
Many people are asking why ES didn’t just run away or act out in public. Just like, in the cases of child abuse/molestation/etc., many people ask why the child/teen didn’t just tell somebody. Yet it has been shown, time and time again, that the abuser/molester uses many psychological “tricks” to keep the abused silent…from coercion to intimidation to threats against the individual/family members/pets/you-name-it.
And that makes sense to me, if I indeed read the post correctly. People are finding it suspicious that ES would actually go out in public and never say a word. Yet, every day, thousands of kids are abused, by relatives and neighbors and teachers and strangers, and never say a word. (Yes, I realize the situation may be different, abuse vs. kidnapping, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the psychology behind ES keeping silent was not the same, especially if threats were made against her family that she believed.)
Maybe I misinterpreted the post, but I didn’t read it as being an accusation against the Smart family as being abusive.
On the contrary, the POINT to my point was that it was this distinction to which Mr2001 may have been referring, as was stated in my post.
I did, and I wasn’t. Innate ability to consent and legal permission are two different things. Dismissing that point as “blathering about semantics” smacks of rationalizing a desire to ignore the distinction.
I can think of no reason to do such a thing, nor have I made any attempt to do so. Establishing what actually happened is not my job; and further, I am in no position to find out. Whoever has controlled this situation is who has been responsible for it. I personally doubt if that person has ever been Elizabeth.
Your suspicions of my intentions, by the way, are as irrelevant and unfounded as my suspicions of your intentions would be if I bothered to develop any…which I haven’t, as they would be irrelevant and unfounded.
Then we’re agreed. I’m not sure what you’re attempting to argue with me about. Perhaps my post was insufficiently clear.
The point I made was not improbable, and my motives were clearly stated:
I’m not sure what is unclear about that.
Well, it seems to me that the evidence of my point is pretty clearly given in this thread. But advice is always useful. Since you were kind enough to dispense your own, perhaps I could return the favor:
Your criticisms of the motivations of others will carry more weight if said motivations are not fabricated by you.
WOW.
The assumptions and judgmental attitudes in this thread is sickening. I’ll keep my comments over in the Pit thread to avoid a spanking by a moderator.
Moderator’s Note: kp_72110 you evidently know how to open a Pit thread, and you evidently know what goes in the Pit and what goes in Great Debates, so what’s your excuse? If you are so moved by the topic that all you can post about it are flames it’s very simple–DON’T POST IN GREAT DEBATES!
It’s highly unlikely, I’ll give you that.
Could be. Is that what the abductor was telling her, or are you making an assumption?
Whether a particular person is able to give informed consent depends on his knowledge and emotional maturity, not his age. But this is really a topic for another thread - feel free to start one if you want to discuss this further.
So you, a non-Mormon and complete outsider, have knowledge of secret rituals within the Mormon church that most Mormons are completely unaware of? And you got this knowledge by asking, and no other Mormons ever do the same?
[Bullcrap detector]beepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeep[/Bullcrap detector]
Regards,
Shodan
Mr.2001
No thanks. I will merely stand by what I already posted. Informed consent, emotional maturity, knowledge… blah, blah, blah. Whatever… this is a kid. Would you want your 15 year old, emotionally mature, and knowledgeable daughter to engage in sexual activity of any kind with a 40 year old?
I agree 100% with Jacksen. The kidnapper and his wife bear full responsibility for this, and no blame should be attached to Elizabeth, even if she begged to be kidnapped (not that I think she did). She isn’t the adult in this situation.
And I think it will be interesting when the full story comes out, as I don’t believe we have all the details yet.
I’m not going to judge anybody’s immediate behaviour, either. A kidnapped child has returned after 9 months, who knows how they’d react under those conditions ? Give them a decent amount of time to adjust and sort themselves out.
And the Mormon-bashing in this thread disgusts me. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**So you, a non-Mormon and complete outsider, have knowledge of secret rituals within the Mormon church that most Mormons are completely unaware of? And you got this knowledge by asking, and no other Mormons ever do the same?
No, Shodan, I do not have “knowledge” of what occurs during sacred rituals. My point is/was: I have asked my LDS friends, because I was curious and they do not yet know. They are quite open to sharing their faith / belief system, especially if asked. Further - what did I say, exactly, to make you so sure that I am a complete outsider? A non-mormon yes.
I think you and “Monty” read way too much into my post, and misunderstood the “point”. I will work on my writing and grammarical skills and try to make it more clear for you.
Evidently “simple” is better.
Let me clear up one other point made while I’m here. “Religious Freak” - okay let’s say “Religious Fanatic”, or “Fanatically Religious”. Was it the word “freak” that offended? Maybe these terms will make it feel better.
:dubious:
I used to be a catholic. The RCC has at least a few secret rituals of their own. Maybe not deep, dark secret, as in “Now I have to kill you”, but rituals certainly not open to the masses. A couple that pop into my mind;
[ul]
[li]Choosing a new pope.[/li][li]Making a saint.[/li][li]Exorcism, the biggy.[/li]and
[li]Changing the rules.[/li][/ul]
In other words, rituals ain’t no big thing. And the Mormons do got 'em. 
Ask a Mormon, if you don’t believe it.
Banger “appeal to authority” is a classic logical fallacy. You should probably read up on it as it accurately describes wearywitch’s post.
If you knew anything about the LDS, you would know that any rituals that are sacred are not unknown to “the most devout Mormon follower.” Indeed, if it were unknown, how would you have found out about it?
Additionally, all LDS are taught about limited stewardship–that no one has a right to revelation or inspired counsel for anyone not in his responsibility. That is, a Bishop has no right to receive inspired counsel for someone not in the congregation he leads. A father (or mother) has the right to revelation for his family, but not for another, etc. This is spelled out over and over again. A nutjob homeless guy who breaks into your house and takes you away at knifepoint has no right to anything pertaining to you (well, that one really isn’t in the lesson manuals).
Your suggestion is absurd (indeed, it borders on the “aluminum hat” style of conspiracy), and Monty dismissed it rightfully.
And Banger perhaps you should advise wearywitch to learn about tact as well.
I’m not the one making baseless accusations against the Smart family, nor am I the one making prejudicial (not to mention ridiculous) comments about the LDS church. Perhaps the individuals do doing, as Shodan and Goo so eloquently indicated, are the ones in need of tact edification.