Secret rituals = Rituals that the details of are secret, right? Not rituals that the existence of are secret.
I’ll stand by what I’ve posted - if she’s emotionally mature and informed, she can make her own judgments. Doesn’t matter if she’s 15 or 50.
Whether I’d be able to see past my fatherly instinct for protection in order to accurately judge her maturity and knowledge is another question… at this point, I can only hope I would.
[/hijack]
… okay, and this 15 year old girl knew this? I will reiterate: This “nutjob” that broke into her home and was stealing her away, was an adult. Who knows what he told her, and who knows what he knows about the religious faith she follows? IT IS possible that he knows enough to seduce her from her home - to keep her from fleeing by using “God” and the “Church” to keep her in his clutches. If her faith in her church is strong (and I believe it is), he could have used this to “hold” her. THAT’S ALL I WAS SAYING.
I’d be interested to know why what I stated has you so PISSED OFF? I’m DEFENDING HER, NOT EMMANUEL.
emarkp, that link you cite refers to a logical fallacy in an argument.
Nowhere did wearywitch claim to be citing authority and making an argument based on it. A few experiences were mentioned, and speculation based on those experiences was made. To drive the point home that it wasn’t an argument but instead speculation, wearywitch concluded by saying it was “just a thought”.
Calling a thought laughable is an incendiary statement showing a lack of tact.
If wearywitch’s experience is of such limited scope so as to be incorrect, note the deficiency and provide info so as to enlighten; don’t treat it as an argument to be dismissed and the poster someone to insult. Doing the latter inhibits instead of promotes debate.
The forum “Great Debates”, IIRC, is not limited to formal debate. There, I think, is where the problem lies with emarkp.
Banger: Those few experiences were mentioned in such a manner as to give the appearance of “I know what I’m talking about because I know these other folks.”
Seems like this Mitchell guy, although a clear whack-o, was well versed in scripture and Mormon doctrine. Evidence from his real wife indicates he had been planning this kidnapping for some time. It is highly likely he was in a strong position to exert strong psychological, religious control over E.S.
It won’t be as much fun, but perhaps we should all wait until more facts are available.
Surely, John, you’re referring to the time after he kidnapped her? I ask this because some posters have alluded to him using that kind of tactic to get her to go along with him to begin with.
Yes. It is a part of basic instruction of all LDS. It was a point that Joseph Smith taught over and over again over 150 years ago. I myself taught the Old Testament to two classes (the 12-13 year-olds and 14-15 year-olds). In those classes I made this point several times. I have since served as Elders Quorum President and am currently teaching the adult Gospel Doctrine class in my ward, and I have made that point over and over again. It’s that important.
Considering other central teachings of the LDS church–the value of the family unit, and the order of the church (no one can receive inspiration contrary to the prophet–such as to claim to be the new prophet–or doctrine of the church), I find that unlikely.
How do you know anything about her faith? Why do you believe that her faith is debilitating rather than empowering? Your “thought” is a baseless supposition which isn’t even internally consistent.
I don’t care who or what you’re defending. My interest is in fighting ignorance. Please note the tagline and parenthetical note on the front page of this site. Your wild speculation is based on ignorance of a person and a people.
Good grief, are you kidding? I was calling the basic premise and its conclusion laughable.
Monty clearly dissected the statement. wearywitch clearly claimed that she was “in the know” because of her location in the community and her acquaintences. Why did she claim this if it was not to add weight to her baseless speculation? Why did she make the speculation which is laughable to anyone who is actually a practicing member of the LDS faith? Slinging her unfounded supposition around belongs more in IMHO than in Great Debates.
Do we need to have a thread about remedial logic?
Actually, emarkp, her speculation belongs in the honey bucket.
Thanks for the additional commentary, btw.
Banger: Go check the other thread in the Pit.
Her speculation was based on her experience. If her experience does not reflect the facts about the faith, then enlighten her, don’t attack her speculation as if she was claiming to espouse an opinion based on authoritative knowledge.
The premise was based on experience, which has been by other posters been deemed not indicative of LDS. If you seek to fight ignorance, don’t do so by intimidation; do so by enlightenment.
I did not read wearywitch’s post as claiming to be in the know. Instead, I read it as her saying that she knows some Mormons, and that from her experiences, she came to certain conclusions about their faith, and based on those conclusions, she speculated as to what happened in this particular situation. I can understand if you want to correct those conclusions, but I don’t see how you can claim that she made them while she claimed to be an expert qualified to make such conclusions and present them as an argument. I don’t see her doing that.
Once again, a lack of tact. Instead of civilly discussing these issues, you insult other posters by questioning their ability to think logically.
If anything, perhaps one or more of us (myself included) needs a thread about reading comprehension so that what is intended to be understood and what is read are the same thing.
I know I have often used the lofty term of “enlightenment” in my posts here, but I mean it in a simple sense: provide information that is useful, be it newly added information to help spur the debate, or useful information that is contrary to information that has already been submitted.
That is your VERY WRONG Perception. WHO ARE YOU?
It’s my very correct reading of what you actually said is what it is, weary.
Who am I? Why, I’m one of those LDS; you know, the folks you’ve accused of being the epitome of religious freaks/fanatics. Now let’s see you backpedal out of that comment.
Hey, I’m not Mormon and I felt a little queasy at wearywitch’s comments.
I was able to see that she was trying to “defend” Elizabeth, but my take on it was that she thought Elizabeth was made more vulnerable to her kidnapper because of her religion. I don’t necessarily buy that.
We don’t know Elizabeth, we don’t know the Smarts, we just don’t know. All we know is that the family was naive enough to hire homeless people. A very “Christian” thing to do (no, really!) but not very prudent. That’s all we KNOW. The rest of it—we don’t know jack shit.
And an aside—do the Mormons who post on this board seem like weak-minded lemmings who could be any more “vulnerable” to a kidnapper than the rest of us? (Not that we KNOW them, but do they seem to show an extra vulnerability?) I don’t see it. I don’t see it in the Mormons that I know personally.
The speculation about whether or not Mormon doctrine could have been used as a hook by which to control Elizabeth is moot if simple brainwashing techniques like sleep deprivation were used. Any political or religious beliefs can be so used in conjunction with brainwashing.
We don’t know if such techniques were used yet, but if she did indeed spend weeks in an isolated cabin it’s very possible that was what was going on.
It’s also moot because all the evidence now indicates that Elizabeth was a 15 year old girl taken by force and against her will by a much older couple. All the speculation to the contrary is at present baseless … and base.
Amen.
When I first read about the Polly Klauss kidnapping, I remember thinking there was something odd about that. Oh, come on, who would walk in the middle of a slumber party and kidnap one of the girls right in front of the others? Surely ONE of the girls could have gotten away! How convenient that the father slept through the whole thing. And you start to look more closely at the father and wonder if his grief was genuine and wonder if HE had something to do with it.
And you know, I was DEAD WRONG. In the end, Marc Klauss was absolutely guiltless. Shame on me for expecting him to act a certain way. The circumstances were absolutely bizarre, yes. But sometimes criminals, or grief-stricken parents, don’t act the way we think they should.
As far as Ed Smart being creepy, you know I don’t really care if he creeps you out. He kept his daughter’s name and picture out there in the public consciousness long after we’d all given her up for dead. He worked tirelessly for months and didn’t give up hope. He cooperated 100% with the police and tried to keep them motivated. When Smart suspected that the police were losing interest (due to their preoccupation with Ricci) he’d call a press conference to put pressure on them. Just a few weeks ago he partnered with John Walsh to have Emmanuel’s picture appear on “America’s Most Wanted.” AND, lo and behold, thanks to his efforts, they found her. The two women who called the police to say they’d spotted “Emmanuel” had seen the show.
So it’s no WONDER Smart is giving countless press conferences now. Why shouldn’t he? The media helped him find his daughter! How ungrateful would it be for him to slam the door on them after they’ve given him umpteen hours of free air time in his quest to find his daughter? He talked about his daughter playing the harp for the first time. So what? What is he going to tell them? “This morning we have an appointment with a gynecologist to see if she’s been raped or has been given an STD by her kidnapper. Next question?”
He’s trying to give them what they want (a story) while at the same time protect his daughter. And he’s trying to use the wave of publicity to help pass Amber Alert laws.
Media whore? Yes, I guess he is. But who amongst us wouldn’t be if it would help us find our missing son or daughter?
I won’t be backpedalling out of anything. I still stand by everything I’ve said… regardless of how you choose to perceive it.
I think it is more likely that Mitchell used his own doctrine to gain control as opposed to LDS teachings.
You can read his manifesto here:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,465033465,00.html
Also, for those who are having a hard time understanding how she could not have been found just a few miles from home, this new article explains their campsite where he kept her for the first few months:
“Surely, John, you’re referring to the time after he kidnapped her? I ask this because some posters have alluded to him using that kind of tactic to get her to go along with him to begin with.”
There are so few facts out on this case at this time. While it certainly is POSSIBLE he had some contact with her pre-kidnap, we have no reason to believe that at this time. So, yes, I’m thinking of influence post-kidnap.
It’s amazing that when there was an attenpted break-in at E.S.'s cousin’s home (actually, her room) that the police didn’t step up invstigation of other suspects (Ricci was in jail at the time). Maybe I’ve just watched too many crime shows to buy the “we thought it was a prank by some kids in the neighborhood” line form the police. And when the Smarts identified Mitchell specifically as a suspect in OCTOBER they still did nothing.
I think the police force is flying under the radar right now. They’ve got a lot of 'splainin to do.