Is there something odd about the Elizabeth Smart case?

[Monty]

So, weary, you make a bigoted comment and you wonder why people react like it’s a bigoted comment? Truly amazing.

[astro]

Here is an article in Salon that directly address the topic of this discussionwith it’s own theory. If you’re not a member of Salon you’ll have to watch the Amex ad for 30 seconds to see the article.

The Church of Latter-day constraints
A former Mormon says that the sheltered environment of Elizabeth Smart’s religion might explain why she didn’t run from her captors or you can get it from the masthead at www.salon.com

Most important, it is a religion of the Man. Mormonism is an exasperatingly patriarchal faith that keeps women from holding the priesthood, and in fact, even denies them special rights in their afterlife. At home, the dad is king, his word reigning supreme over all others. This dual worship of both God and Dad infantilize Mormon children, especially girls, who are subject to calcified ideas about gender.

Time and time again I have seen my vibrant, funny, 10-year-old female relatives gradually lose their personalities, especially once they get into their teens and the husband hunt becomes serious business. It is a religion that has no interest in reviving Ophelia; my grandmother had a cross-stitched quote from a recent Mormon president in her hallway that read, “A modest, gracious woman is God’s masterpiece.”

Elizabeth’s alleged captors, especially Brian David Mitchell (whom she called “Emmanuel”), played easily into a distended father fantasy, even for someone her age. Mitchell’s story about being a latter-day Messiah was tailor-made for consumption. Mormonism itself stems from Joseph Smith, a young farm boy who claimed to decipher gold tablets in western New York that said Jesus had visited his brethren in America as well. The Old Testament is filled with stories equally incredible, but the fact that the Book of Mormon was found here, outside Rochester, N.Y., allows Mormons to believe in both the mundane and the magical.

In fact, it is the Mormons’ combination of the transcendent and the here-and-now that makes them so fascinating. While still thriving in the material world, they constantly live (in their vernacular) “close to the veil” – the thin, gossamer shroud that separates the real world from a host of otherworldly splendors. It is this ability to imagine the unimaginable that makes them fabulous raconteurs, and excellent missionaries. It is one of the world’s fastest-growing religions. And if you ever talked to my Uncle Chris, a subtle and brilliant proselytizer, you’d know why.

The point the author (an ex-Mormon) seems to be trying to make is that Mormonism infantilzes girls and young women and makes them especially susceptible to male manipulation. Although it appears he might have something of an ax to grind with the LDS culture.

I’m not going to pretend I know what happened between Elizabeth Smart and her captors. Philosophizing from afar is a loser’s game, and no doubt more will be revealed in the coming investigation. I won’t even pretend that I can generalize about a religion with 10 million members and counting – my own extended family bucks the trend substantially, with a gaggle of incredibly strong women, many divorced, who willed their children through the 20th century on determination alone.

[Monty]

Geez, astro. It’s not like there’s not already some garbage posted in this thread already. Did you really have to go get that particular article?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Well, Mitchell has now been formally charged. Here are the court documents from Smoking Gun. He has been charged with aggravated sexual assault. According to the probable cause statement, Elizabeth was forcibly and repeatedly raped and assaulted beginning the night of the abduction. He also repeatedly threatened to kill her family if she tried to escape. This guy is scum. If you had any doubts, just read the court documents.

[dangermom]

Wow, astro. That quote from Salon is ridiculous. As a Mormon woman, who knows many other Mormon women, I think I can say that we aren’t infantilized, we don’t worship our fathers or our husbands, and we aren’t ‘denied rights’ in the afterlife. The women I know and love are strong, with plenty of personality and drive. I work with the teen girls in my ward, and am amazed at their accomplishments, ambition, and general wonderfulness. I am also very proud of the heritage I see from the women before me. Come over to my town sometime and meet us; we are worth it.

(And ask any Mormon male–the women are the ones who get things done!)

[dangermom]

And I think just about any 14-year old girl would be torn to pieces from what seems to have been done to her.

[astro]

*Originally posted by genie *
**Wow, astro. That quote from Salon is ridiculous. As a Mormon woman, who knows many other Mormon women, I think I can say that we aren’t infantilized, we don’t worship our fathers or our husbands, and we aren’t ‘denied rights’ in the afterlife. The women I know and love are strong, with plenty of personality and drive. I work with the teen girls in my ward, and am amazed at their accomplishments, ambition, and general wonderfulness. I am also very proud of the heritage I see from the women before me. Come over to my town sometime and meet us; we are worth it.

(And ask any Mormon male–the women are the ones who get things done!) **

I posted the article link as it seemed to address the notion of a LDS influenced culture of female deference to male desires being referenced in this thread, and it was written by someone that was in the church. Given your comments and Monty’s (assumedly as current LDS church members) it would evidently be prudent to take the author’s comments with a pickup truck sized grain of salt in considering his characterization of Mormon girls as incipient Stepford wife zombies, and as I indicated he did seem to have something of an ax to grind re the brave new world his numerous ex-Mormon divorced female relatives were making their way in vs the false comforts of being tyrannized by the patriarchial overlords within the church.

[Monty]

The thing is, andros, it doesn’t address that at all. What it does is repeat lies and slander about the LDS, and especially the LDS women. Since this thread is ostensibly a GD thread, it would behoove you to get something, say, factual to posit in the thread instead of some moron’s bigoted anti-LDS rantings.

[Rico]

What I’m worried about is how she will be viewed now WITHIN the Mormon Church. A former president of the LDS church once wrote:

Once given or taken, [chastity] can never be regained… It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it… – Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle Of Forgiveness (p. 196)

Let’s hope that Elizabeth is not turned into a “scarlet woman” because she didn’t “die defending her virtue”.

[dangermom]

Oh, pthththb. Rape and child abuse/molestation are not the fault of the victim. Just yesterday there was a big article in our paper stating that the bishop had gotten up in the Smart’s ward Sunday and stated that she had had her free agency taken away from her, that nothing that had happened to her was her fault, and that “she is pure before the Lord.” I suppose that was partly to counter comments like that one.

[emarkp]

Amazing what ellipsis can do Rico. Let me underline relevant portions of the quote which you conveniently left out:

Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

[Rico]

My point being - there will be questions as to whether she did “voluntarily participate” or not. The fact that she is underage has no bearing on the chastity issue within the LDS church, the issue with church leaders is was she forcibly raped.

There will always be questions regarding the Smart kidnapping. My personal opinion is that Mitchell should be locked away and the key thrown in the middle of the Great Salt Lake. I feel for Elizabeth and her parents, and was overjoyed when she was found alive. But she has now started the long road to recovery. And she’s going to need all the help she can get, not condemnation. And that’s what I’m afraid will happen.

Let’s ALL, LDS, or non-LDS, pray and hope Elizabeth recovers fully from this and goes on to lead a productive, fulfilled life in the way she wants to live it, and can put this enough in her past to be happy about her present state.

[Monty]

Only the ignorant will have those questions, Rico, and only the mean-spirited and ignorant will condemn her. The DA clearly explained the situation.

I agree that everyone who does pray should pray for her.

[emarkp]

Rico, I flat out don’t believe you. Your cite snipped out important clauses from the quote. The following two sentences have very different meanings, and anyone with basic reading comprehension skills knows it:

It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it.
It is better to die in defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

Your own quote:

Let’s hope that Elizabeth is not turned into a “scarlet woman” because she didn’t “die defending her virtue”.

Directly states your belief that LDS may believe that because she survived at all she was ipso facto at fault. I can only conclude that you either intentionally altered the quote to get that meaning across, or you mindlessly copied and pasted from traditional anti-Mormon sources. Shame on you.

Let’s ALL, LDS, or non-LDS, pray and hope Elizabeth recovers fully from this and goes on to lead a productive, fulfilled life in the way she wants to live it, and can put this enough in her past to be happy about her present state.

I’ve already been doing that. Let’s also pray that the mindless anti-Mormons can break out of their sheep-like stupor long enough to wipe the foam from their mouths, look at facts, not distort sources, and generally participate in a rational discussion.

[Monty]

Here’s a quote from an LDS site (actually the LDS site):

“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest."

That was said by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, 9 February 1999, in a devotional at Brigham Young University.

An even more on-point comment is this one:

Victims of rape, incest, or other sexual abuse are not guilty of sin. If you have been a victim of any of these crimes, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Seek your bishop’s counsel immediately so he can help guide you through the process of emotional healing.

That remark is from For the Strength of Youth. The bolding in there is mine. I don’t know who said it; however, that is a Church publication and thus the doctrinal comments therein, such as what I’ve quoted, have “passed muster.”

Plus another on-point comment:

Those who were raped or abused sexually are not guilty of breaking the law of chastity.

That’s from Gospel Fundamentals, Part Seven: Following Jesus Christ, 25: The Law of Chastity, 142.

It took me less than fifteen minutes to do a search on www.lds.org and get the actual information as to what the Church teaching is in the case of a victim of a sexual crime. I went to that site and clicked on the link for the Gospel Library, selected “Church Publications HTML,” and then searched that for the one word: “rape.” It returned 81 hits.

Origignally posted by emarkp:
Let’s also pray that the mindless anti-Mormons can break out of their sheep-like stupor long enough to wipe the foam from their mouths, look at facts, not distort sources, and generally participate in a rational discussion.

emarkp: That’s going on my fridge! Tell your Mom you got an A+!

Rico: Just this past Sunday in Sacrament meeting, one of the speakers mentioned where and how one can find out what the Church really teaches about a number of issues. One of the resources he mentioned was the Church’s website. Can you tell I payed attention to him?

[sixseven]

Bad news, I just heard on the radio that the girl’s parents don’t want to press any sex abuse charges (for attempted rape and aggravated sexual assault). That’s so stupid. If that were my daughter, you had better believe I would be prosecuting them to no end. I don’t understand how any parent could refuse to press charges upon learning their child had been sexually abused! This guy and his weird wife have got to be labeled sex offenders, and that need to be done by charging them with what they did!Perhaps they make a little sense in their reasoning, that they don’t want Elizabeth to go through the trauma of testifying and reliving it over again, but enough overprotection for her and let’s get on with justice.

I would cite the radio station giving this information, but I don’t want any references to where I live.

[DEVA]

I’m not touching the Mormon v. non-Mormon debate. I have no truck with Mormons.

But, staying true to the topic of the thread: I’m watching the O’Reilly factor and it was just stated that the Smarts want the “sexual misconduct” charged DROPPED. That’s odd to me. What could be the possible logic behind that desire? I’m not being a smart-ass when I ask that question…I’m honestly curious as to what their reasoning could be.

[Guinastasia]

Maybe they don’t want her to go through the trauma of it? I believe that trials dealing with sexual abuse and/or rape can be quite nasty-especially for the victim.

And perhaps with all the speculation going on that she was “willing”…shakes head

Obviously, I don’t agree with their decision, but I can see perhaps why they might do this.

[Saen]

IIRC, it doen;t matter if the parents, or even Elizabeth wants the charges dropped. In the case of a minor, any sex with her, forcably or not is illegal. And I am sure the state can get convincing evidence to submit to a jury or judge. If the DA doesn’t prosecute a sexual assault charge that is obvious would only be appropriate to the victim if they deem the other charges significant punishment.

[Monty]

Just for the heck of it, if nothing else, let’s try to get the facts straight.

From www.ksltv.com accessed exactly two minutes ago:

The Smarts are pleased with the charges today, and the ten million dollar bail set for Barzee and Mitchell. But a family spokesperson says they regret, for Elizabeth’s sake, that aggravated sexual assualt charges are now public.

From the same article:

In order to protect the case, the Smarts will not comment on it further. They say fully support the district attorney’s office in prosecuting Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee to the fullest extent of the law. They’re willing to do whatever it takes to make sure the pair pay for their crimes.

&

But at the same time they want to avoid a court appearance where Elizabeth would have to take the stand.

Not jack about wanting the charges dropped.