Elizabeth Smart tells story of survival
Published Nov 8, 2010 07:41:06PM 0 Comments

Here is a link of Elizabeth's testimony today. Read it. You might learn something. Unless you think she is lying through her teeth, she did not believe Mitchell was a prophet and did not have any respect for him whatsoever-priesthood power be damned.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50633194-78/elizabeth-mitchell-testified-barzee.html.csp
Sorry, here is a link that works

Thanks for posting.

Please respond to the above link, nwmcare. I'm interested in your feedback.

queenofdenial Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for posting.
>
> Please respond to the above link, nwmcare. I'm
> interested in your feedback.


Me too. Do you think she is lying and if so, do you have any proof?

Well, I'm disappointed. I was really hoping nwmcare would respond. Goodnight then. ;)

Well, my guess is that he read the transcripts and is embarrassed or that he doesn't care about the truth if it contradicts his theory.

The Cult is very much to blame in this case, but not for conditioning her, but for conditioning HIM. Are Mormon females conditions from birth? Very much so, I don't agree with it, but it is not relative to this case. She is the VICTIM, not the perpetrator, so you can't blame the Cult for the conditioning to her in doing what a person who holds a knife to your throat tells you to do. You can't blame the Cult for her not crying out when she heard searchers calling her name. He threatened if she did, he would kill her family. For all she knew, he could have easily escaped if she cried out. He had proved he could get in their house, so she would have to believe if he got away, her family would be killed.

The blame the Cult has is for conditioning HIM. What do you think it does to a 12 year old boy with the priesthood to be told he has more power in his little finger than the Pope has in his whole body? Told that this power of the priesthood gives him the ability to discern what God's will for him and his family is?

Yes, I very much blame the CULT for this case: FOR HIM. They conditioned him from birth. If he is found to be mentally ill, then their beliefs and teachings only added to it and enhanced his illness. Did the Cult try to find him help, or offer assistance? No, they kicked him out, and distanced themselves from him. Not our problem. The Cult local leaders (Bishops) have no training in dealing with people, so the only solution for them is "kick em out" whereas a real church pastor would try to find help for a person with delusions of being a Prophet or of becoming a God. But of course, all the good Mormon men believe the latter, so the Cult wouldn't recognize a person with mental problems (so much for discernment or power of the priesthood).

I must say that reading the view that this child being kidnapped, raped repeatedly, tied to a tree for months by a cable is only "secondary" to her victimization by the Mormon cult is so ludicrous as to defy all reason. This is what is universally known as "narcisissm," the view that only what has happened to us is the worst of the worst--so if the cult has victimized us, a child's rape doesn't compare. Her membership in the Mormon church, now that's victimization. A complete total loss of perspective so extreme...

His religion or hers is not the point. Trying to make it the point is just as crazy as that idiot who kidnapped her is.

He is nuts, crazy, mentally ill-- Maybe.

Seems to me that only people who are blinded by their hatred for their religion of their heritage and their friends and relatives can't see the truth of the case.
So much for non-judgmental, and tolerant attitudes from former Mormons.

I think Mitchell is ill, but I do think the form his illness took was influenced by the church. However, I doubt the church caused his illness and the form it took could have been as bad or worse if the church wasn't involved. If he had been an average pedophile instead of a polygamist wannabbee pedophile, Elizabeth might have been killed. there is no way to know.

Polly Klaas's dad (from Petaluma, California) can tell you why a young girl leaves her home when an older man is leading her out with a knife. She's being abducted.

Elizabeth left for the same reason any 14 yr old would. The creep had a knife to her and threatened her. Only 1 in a million young girls would balk.

I don't think the Mormon upbringing in any way influenced whether she would leave the house with the creep.

libby Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Elizabeth left for the same reason any 14 yr old
> would. The creep had a knife to her and
> threatened her. Only 1 in a million young girls
> would balk.
>

I read this thread, then went and read part of the original thread. I hear a lot of people who are pretty entrenched in their own point of view and think that it's a black and white issue.

I hear a lot of "Every teen would do the same if..."

That is simply not true. Some teens would, some wouldn't. I did a quick google search for "Teen escapes" and kidnapper. On just the first page of results (it brings up 6,110) there are these examples.



"The teen daughter of a prominent Cedar Valley auto dealer bravely fought off a gun-wielding would-be kidnapper who shot her in the foot outside College Square Mall Tuesday night."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514440/posts
--------------

A 14-year-old "unlocked the car door and waited for the right moment to fight back" and got away from an abductor who was sexually assaulting her.

"I bit him and then I pulled the door and got out," she said.
http://www.39online.com/news/local/kiah-kidnapped-girl-story,0,666002.story

-----------------------

Police praised a 15-year-old Newark girl for doing the right thing when she fought off a kidnapper Tuesday morning during an attempted abduction.“He grabbed her, knocked her to ground,” said Newark Police Commander Bob Douglas. “[The] juvenile did the right thing [and] fought back. She screamed and drew attention to the incident."

The kidnapping quickly turned to attempted murder when the suspect fired a gun at people trying to help the girl.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23138242/detail.html

------------------------------


I don't know what makes one teen girl act one way, and another be more compliant. There could be 1,000 variables, and religious views on male authority and obedience could be a couple of the variables.

The truth is, some girls will obey their captors and go along, some will get the Stockholm syndrome that keeps getting mentioned. Some will stick it out for years and years like the other story in the news.

Others will fight like hell and get away.

We know which group the Smart girl is in, but we don't know exactly why she is part of that group. As stated, it could be 1,000 different things that made her part of that group.

It's not as black and white as both sides are trying to make it. And not all teen girls would do the same as she did. Many other girls don't do what she did.

It happened in the local school yard in the late afternoon. The girl was playing when a bad guy grabbed him and threw her over his shoulder. The kid bit, kicked, and screamed bloody murder which attracted several bigger kids from the other side of the school. They helped each other pull the kid out of the kidnapper's grasp and then called the police on a cell phone.

The police fortunately captured the culprit who happened to live in his mother's backroom in the neighborhood. In one way I felt bad because I had secretly discounted stories that a bad guy had been showing up around the school off and on for several years. I used to substitute teach in that school and my kids attended there from first grade to sixth. I've learned my lesson about taking this kind of gossip seriously.

It's correct to say that spunk and a sense of self awareness along with quick thinking can save kids and grownups in times of emergency.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The kid bit, kicked, and screamed bloody murder which
> attracted several bigger kids...
>

> It's correct to say that spunk and a sense of self
> awareness along with quick thinking can save kids
> and grownups in times of emergency.


I want to emphasis that I didn't hand pick some good rare examples in my previous post. I took what came up on just the first page of results. There are many, many more in the 6,000 results if I were handpicking good ones.

It would be interesting to know why some kids are the fighters, and some are the compliant ones. Fear isn't the only variable, as even the fighters are afraid of what might happen to them.

I'm sure that you will find atheists and devoutly religious in both groups (kids that fight off an attacker, and those who don't). Kids from well to do families like the Smarts, and kids from poor families. And kids in both groups from about every other group heading you could come up with.

But I do think that the premise that LDS culture has absolutely nothing to do with it at all, is as wild of a claim as the claim that it's the main reason.

Most girls would balk at going into a room with a neighbor guy and telling him about how they masturbate just because he asks. Most LDS girls will do that. Why? LDS culture says to obey those who claim authority and do what they tell you to do, even if it's outrageous. That is just one example of how being raised LDS will make you respond completely different to a situation than almost all other girls would respond.

I'm not saying that this alone made the Smart girl obey, I'm just saying that it's not so unreasonable to think that she may have been more likely to act one way due to cultural conditioning, even if it's just a small part of the equation.

It's somewhat easier to picture a girl fighting back who tells the neighbor guy who is asking about masturbation to F-off. And somewhat easier to see one not fighting back who goes into the neighbor guys office and pours out all her shame over masturbation, then keeps coming back in the coming weeks to discuss it more.

Do I think that this is "THE" reason she didn't fight back? No. But I think it could be one of many reasons that makes her be a compliant one, rather than a fighter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 10:42AM by DNA.

Another real life incident in a nearby town happened about five years ago when a kidnapped nine year old fought her way out of a vehicle and got into a big rig stopped at a light. The trucker helped her contact police and her parents. Kids need to have the presence of mind to turn for help to any random adult in extreme emergencies.

One of my six year old students was so shy that she hid and refused to accept help from the school principal, a nice guy she knew from school. She hid under a boat on a trailer in her driveway after walking home alone when her parent was delayed and couldn't pick her up. The principal went out looking for her and very nearly didn't find her because of her very submissive and withdrawn personality and training.

I do believe Elizabeth Smart's testimony. There is no way she is lying. I also recognize, as a person who works with teens professionally, a person who was set up for victimhood. LDS is not the only institution that does this, believe you me--there are others.

But watching inner city kids--the ones who make it are the ones who have been taught not to let anyone tell them what to do and the ones who don't are the ones who have been conditioned to obey. Ms. Smart has been conditioned from day 1. And that's the elephant in the room. I know, he lived in my living room, too.

I hate it that this happened to such a beautiful girl. I also hate it that it happens to less than beautiful children with less than supportive families and a press corps that ignores them because they don't play the way Elizabeth Smart does. As pointed out in an earlier thread, religion often influences the mentally ill and makes it so much worse for the devout.

There is definitely cognitvie dissonance here. Her faith helped her 'recover' but is never mentioned otherwise? I wonder.

I think whether someone fights back depends to a large extent on the circumstances. If there is a chance to get away, most people would take it, but very few people would fight an attacker if fighting would almost certainly lead to their death. People do not always act the same, but I doubt many people would say "no" to an attacker who was holding a knife to their throat. As to why Elizabeth didn't try to escape later, I would put that down to the Stockholm Syndrome. Patti Hearst didn't try to escape either and she had many chances. Perhaps those who fought back had an opportunity that Elizabeth didn't have.Personality plays a part too I am sure. I never said that no one fights back but I take issue with those who say they wouldn't have gone with Mitchell. I think that most people would have in the same circumstance.At any rate, I would not fault a 14 year old or her religion because she went with a man who held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her and her family.She not only had herself to worry about but her little sister who was in the same room.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2010 11:36AM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think whether someone fights back depends to a
> large extent on the circumstances. If there is a
> chance to get away, most people would take it, but
> very few people would fight an attacker if
> fighting would almost certainly lead to their
> death. People do not always act the same, but I
> doubt many people would say "no" to an attacker
> who was holding a knife to their throat. As to why
> Elizabeth didn't try to escape later, I would put
> that down to the Stockholm Syndrome.


That syndrome takes a little bit to develop, it isn't instant. It could explain why she didn't leave later on.

I'll bet in the first few hours there were many times that a knife wasn't at her throat. Kids have gotten away from people with guns.

Some kids plan and strategize, some go on instinct. In one of the links I posted, the girl unlocked her door and waited for just the right time. That takes strategy. Some just yell, scream, bite, kick etc. just out of instinct without thinking.

I really don't think that circumstances play as big of a role as you are saying. The fight or flight instinct doesn't involve a lot of thinking, though there is some thinking, it's the body's response to fear and harm.

My kids learned to hide and try to startle me from a crouched position. When I get startled I punch before I have any time to think. I've punched friends, family, and almost one of my kids when someone has hidden around a corner and jumped out at me. Punching is an instinct for me. A neighbor guys gets teased because his instinct is to raise his hands, palms out, run in place for a few steps, and yell. As an affront to his manliness, he certainly wouldn't do that if he had time to think.

I've had a gun pointed in my face, and I didn't have my punch startle response; I wasn't startled, I was scared though. I froze and talked after a few seconds. Who knows how many other responses I may have in me for other situations?

But I'm pretty sure that if you took one of the teen girls in the many fighter examples, and put them in the Smart girl's exact situation as far as the knife and abduction goes, and I'm pretty sure that they would have done something in the first day.

It doesn't make the Smart girl less than or anything, but something makes us react differently to fear and threats. Everyone who is compliant doesn't have Stockholm syndrome, and everyone who is threatened with a knife isn't compliant.

Our genetic makeup, situations we've faced, and learned behavior make us who we are. I got in fights in school, and perhaps that learned behavior is why my startle response isn't like my neighbors.

Who knows what combination of genetics, prior life situations, and learned behavior made the Smart girl do what she did. But it's not what almost all girls would do. It's what many have done, and many have not done.

What LDS culture teaches girls could play a part, though it could be a large part, small part, or almost no part.

My point precisely. Elizabeth Smart was taught. As are many victims. Polly Klaas was brought up in this thread--the most horrifying thing about that situation was that she was not brought up to be a victim--could it be that it was that fact that lead to her death?

Again, there is an elephant in the room.

We all need to raise our children to recognize thier strenght--their ability to say no--thier ability to survive. Because the criminal justice system can only lock up the criminals after they commit the crimes--and as much as we hate that thought--it is the way things have to be in an open society.

nwmcare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point precisely. Elizabeth Smart was taught.
> As are many victims. Polly Klaas was brought up in
> this thread--the most horrifying thing about that
> situation was that she was not brought up to be a
> victim--could it be that it was that fact that
> lead to her death?
>
> Again, there is an elephant in the room.
>
> We all need to raise our children to recognize
> thier strenght--their ability to say no--thier
> ability to survive. Because the criminal justice
> system can only lock up the criminals after they
> commit the crimes--and as much as we hate that
> thought--it is the way things have to be in an
> open society.

Polly Klaas had a better chance than Elizabeth to escape and didn't. Her abductor left her on a hill in the dark while police helped him get his vehicle unstuck. She not only didn't run, she didn't yell to the police.

I was speaking mainly about the beginning. Elizabeth claims Mitchell had a knife to her back all the way to the camp. When they got there , he chained her up. It doesn't sound like her chances of getting away were that good. Another child might have acted differently, but another child might have been killed. BTW, Polly Klaas was left alone on a wooded hillside while her abductor dealt with the police. She had a great opportunity to disappear into the dark or yell to the police. She didn't.That seems to be a common reaction.

Again. my point exactly! We need to teach our children how to deal with the elephant in the room!

Every time I hear about Polly Klaas or Elizabeth Smart (or children like them) I want to (and sometimes do) vomit. We need to teach our children what to do, what to say, how to act.
Teaching them how to be a victim is not the answer.

If this case says anything, it says religion and mental illness are never a good fit.

To say the cult bears no responsibility in this matter is like saying the rise and fall of David Koresh is not tied to William Miller.

Take Joseph Smith out of the equation and this particular crime never occurs.

Plural wife? ... Gee, I wonder where Mitchell got that idea?

Timothy

I am willing to bet she had a deja vu moment.

The experts that I've read, and talked to in person, say that being loud and fighting is your best course of action in almost every situation. If they have a weapon or threaten to kill you, and are going to take you out of the area that you got attacked in, you're almost as good as dead anyway.

There are plenty of people who did it differently, and lived and were relatively unharmed, but your best odds are being loud and fighting back.

If the Smart girl screamed very loudly, he might have killed her and her sister... Or he may have retreated out the window that he came in never to be seen again.

Your odds are best if you scream and fight.

Act immediately, scream, yell, fight, kick, gouge eyes, stomp the instep, grab anything for a weapon, and do whatever you can not to leave the area and not to go into a vihicle.

Of course it sadly doesn't always work, but neither does submitting and cooperating.

That is what we teach our girls. But we are not LDS. We are just inner city bureaucrats . . . and we will soon be out of jobs because the winds of change have come with the elections . . . less government . . .