I heard a blurb on the local news this morning that said he was going to testify about reading Mitchel's writings. His credentials were his knowledge of Ababic and Middle Eastern stuff.

So? I do not get it.

Dr. DeMier testified that,". . . the self-proclaimed prophet suffers from bizarre delusions". No kidding!

Wonder what DeMier's evaluation of JS would have looked like.

Standards regarding insanity are fascinating. I wonder if they're trying to introduce certain religious writings as evidence of Mitchell not being able to understand the consequences of his actions when he is having delusions.

From there, I suppose one could ask, does a person who believes certain things that clearly have no support in reality suffer from delusions?

according Wikipedia, "In psychiatry, it is defined to be a fixed, false belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."

So, if Joe Smith was mentally ill, he may have been delusional when he came up with all his shit. If he wasn't ill, then he was the scoundrel we all know and love.

In Mitchell's case, he was likely cuhraazy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 11:10AM by wine country girl.

I remember reading Mitchel's writings. This was when I was still TBM. It is pretty much indistinguishable from the Doctrine and Covenants.

the test for insanity we always used:
If you believe in old Biblical prophets, or Jesus, etc, that's Ok,
But if you think you are a prophet, or Jesus, or Moses, etc, that's crossing the line and you are a candidate for the mental hospital.

If he thinks he's a prophet, for instance, he's insane.

The only difference is that Smith had more followers and used a smarter method to get chicks.

the psychiatrist couldn't say whether the many fundamental Mormon "prophets" running around today (like Warren Jeffs) are mentally ill. Nor could he (I venture) say if good ol' Joe was nuttier than a fruitcake.

http://www.fox13now.com/news/local/kstu-elizabeth-smart-kidnapping-trial-final-days,0,3491091.story

"I believe that he does not believe that revelation does not necessarily consist of visions or hearing voices or anything like that. . ." Peterson began, before defense attorneys objected to the relevance."

But what he had to add, I can't imagine.

By the way, there is a rumor that his latest disappearance from message boards is at the behest of the top leaders who like to use him as a spokesman/deflector, and who tired of his online antics.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2010 01:54PM by Heresy.

I suppose it makes for better deniability.

I don't know why they'd have Peterson talk about Mitchell's writings--it's not relevant to the trial as far as I can tell. And even if there was a reason why Peterson should testify, his "experience" with ancient documents doesn't have jack doodley to do with modern religious writings, even ones as crazy and whacked out as those from the pen of "Immanuel" the kidnapper.