Joseph Smith “sexual predator” label?

[Red Ryder]

In the other thread Fluffy used the sexual predator label.

I’m not sure why I get hung up on the “sexual predator” label? Not going to argue I agree or disagree but rather lay out how I see things in an attempt to dig into this hang up. Hopefully I can communicate this accurately as I’m not trying to defend Joseph Smith or condemn anyone that chooses to call him a sexual predator.

Perhaps I’m trying to understand the intent which defines differences between an opportunist and predator?

I see Smith as a pious fraud where he invented his first vision and subsequent Book of Mormon stories as a means to generate money. He was successful in finding people who believed in his stories, who propped him up as a spiritual leader, which subsequently increased his power, money, and ego. At which point he became a pursuer of sexual relationships with his followers. Opportunity is created. Many whom as we know, were of a young age which since pursued makes him a predator. In this case the label fits.

Behaviors:
Pious fraud
Egotistical religious leader
Loved attention and power

Result:
Opportunity arose
Preyed on members
Sexual predator!

So which came first?
The predator or the prey?

Perhaps Joseph Smith was a pious predator?

Another example… a Rock Star?

If a Rock Star has sexual relations with underage teenagers as a result of opportunity, does that make them a predator or an opportunist? Of course they’re a predator! See Bible Dictionary - R. Kelly

An opportunist would be the rock star that made mad passionate love to the 30 something fan seeking an autographed t-shirt. Morality would define as immoral but not predatory (if consensual).

Predatory would be underage and from a position of power.
Applying conditional acceptance to heaven is a position of power. Applying fear and damnation is from a position of power. All easily defined as predatory.

Now here’s a thought? What if I suddenly become famous and have hundreds of women throwing themselves at me? I would consider that an opportunity due to my fame, fortune, and good looks!

How would I choose to react?

How I choose to react is what defines the difference between a predator and somebody who is not.

Thought experiment:

How would you choose to act?

[moksha]

An opportunist would be the rock star that made mad passionate love to the 30 something fan seeking an autographed t-shirt. Morality would define as immoral but not predatory (if consensual).

What if the rock star first sent the fan's husband on a mission before pursuing a full-court press? What if he told her that he would be impaled by the gardener with a drawn hedge trimmer if she did not consent? What if he threatened to smear her if she did not comply?

[Palerider]

I'm trying to remember the term used by the church for young men who have had multiple sex partners before their mission.

If I recall, leadership drew a distinction between a young couple in love, who had "made a mistake" and a young man who had been "predatory" in his relationships with young women.

Not sure if "predatory" was the term or something like "serial". Anyway, I know the serial offender was supposedly not considered good missionary material at one time.

So if the church can (or did) use the term predatory for a young filanderer then I suppose the term would fit for Joseph.

[nibbler]

I don't know the answer but this comes to mind...

Opportunist - taking advantage of situations as they present themselves.
Predator - creating situations that you can take advantage of.

[wtfluff]

Brother Ryder:

Where does consent fit into your questions about the predator label?

What about coercion?

[deacon blues]

Joseph was an opportunistic serial predator. On the ranch my Grandpa used to say once a bear or wolf got a taste of a cow, or more usually a calf, it would focus on the calves, to the exclusion of its usual food/prey.
A side note: C.S. Lewis once said something like God doesn’t reveal himself to us for the same reason that a prince would disguise himself while courting a commoner- to see if she would love him for who he was, and not just his role as “Prince.”
It seems to me that Joseph did exactly the opposite.🥺

[Fifi de la Vergne]

Perhaps I’m trying to understand the intent which defines differences between an opportunist and predator?

I dunno, Red. I kind of feel like you're splitting hairs here. An opportunist is someone who "exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans." A predator "ruthlessly exploits others". (Definitions pulled from a quick Google search.) Key word in both: exploit.

Both predators and opportunists are out for their own gratification without regard to its impact on their victims. I'd argue that both are immoral. I'd also say that in one way or another Joseph was exploiting folks from pretty early on. --Unless you believe he really thought he was capable of finding buried treasure, which I don't. I've never been a fan and one of the great benefits of leaving mormonism was not having to suppress or try to argue myself out of my antipathy to Smith.

I think he was charismatic and had a certain genius for religious theater and used it to draw people to him. Then, finding he could pass himself off as a prophet it fed his predatory instincts. Maybe he was a little conflicted about it within himself, but I'm no longer interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in taking sexual advantage of his persona he was just following a predictable script -- you can see the same pattern in the lives of medieval popes, David Koresh, on and on. Same goes for rock stars, business moguls, and presidents. It's what Me Too is all about, which is why a conversation about consent might be more productive than quibbling over the difference between an opportunist and a predator.

[jfro18]

FWIW I think Joseph Smith was a sexual predator.

I don't think he was a pedophile - that has very specific (technical) meaning and I don't think that's an appropriate label *and* it turns anyone off that might otherwise be willing to listen to the problems with Joseph Smith.

But he was a predator - he used his authority to put young girls in positions where they had no choice. And I would argue even more strongly that Joseph Smith was a groomer - he used textbook grooming techniques to get women to submit to his desires to have them marry and have sex with him.

I had to watch a video after a thorough background check before I could be a coach on my kid's baseball team and they went through the characteristics of groomers to look for and Joseph Smith fit pretty much every one of them perfectly.

But if you call him a groomer it will turn anyone off who might otherwise listen, so it's not a great term to use... but that's what he was.

Here's a thread I put on Twitter about his grooming techniques with Lucy Walker if anyone wants to read it (I won't post it here because it would clutter up the thread): https://twitter.com/LDSdiscussions/stat ... 0451467264

[alas]

Perhaps I’m trying to understand the intent which defines differences between an opportunist and predator?

I dunno, Red. I kind of feel like you're splitting hairs here. An opportunist is someone who "exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans." A predator "ruthlessly exploits others". (Definitions pulled from a quick Google search.) Key word in both: exploit.

Both predators and opportunists are out for their own gratification without regard to its impact on their victims. I'd argue that both are immoral. I'd also say that in one way or another Joseph was exploiting folks from pretty early on. --Unless you believe he really thought he was capable of finding buried treasure, which I don't. I've never been a fan and one of the great benefits of leaving mormonism was not having to suppress or try to argue myself out of my antipathy to Smith.

I think he was charismatic and had a certain genius for religious theater and used it to draw people to him. Then, finding he could pass himself off as a prophet it fed his predatory instincts. Maybe he was a little conflicted about it within himself, but I'm no longer interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in taking sexual advantage of his persona he was just following a predictable script -- you can see the same pattern in the lives of medieval popes, David Koresh, on and on. Same goes for rock stars, business moguls, and presidents. It's what Me Too is all about, which is why a conversation about consent might be more productive than quibbling over the difference between an opportunist and a predator.

This. There is no point in quibbling about exactly how bad of a jerk Joseph Smith was. Where do you draw the line between opportunist who takes advantage of the vulnerable and predator who takes advantage of the vulnerable. They both meet their own desires with no thought as to the consequences to their victim. If it quacks like a jerk, and walks like a jerk, maybe it doesn’t matter exactly where the line is between a pious fraud and a fraud fraud or a sexual predator or sexual opportunist.

Now, if you go as far as defining whether or not Joseph was guilty of rape, you might have a quibble point. Is sex with a 14 year old statutory rape if she thinks she is married under God’s law?

[wtfluff]

Now, if you go as far as defining whether or not Joseph was guilty of rape, you might have a quibble point. Is sex with a 14 year old statutory rape if she thinks she is married under God’s law?

Um... I feel like we should mention that the encounter with the 14-year-old also happened "A few years before Joseph's 40th birthday." (Just want to be a good kiddo and use LD$-Inc. terminology - Joe was 38-years-old if my math is correct.)




Edit: Google says Joe was 37 when he "married" the 14-year-old Helen.

[Angel]

I think many mormon men get screwed up because they have spent life rationalizing Joseph.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -wife.html

While I was googling above, this one popped up, another bishop kills wife for mistress

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 77911.html


And this one
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/enoch-utah ... d-at-home/

[Red Ryder]

Perhaps I’m trying to understand the intent which defines differences between an opportunist and predator?

I dunno, Red. I kind of feel like you're splitting hairs here. An opportunist is someone who "exploits circumstances to gain immediate advantage rather than being guided by consistent principles or plans." A predator "ruthlessly exploits others". (Definitions pulled from a quick Google search.) Key word in both: exploit.

Both predators and opportunists are out for their own gratification without regard to its impact on their victims. I'd argue that both are immoral. I'd also say that in one way or another Joseph was exploiting folks from pretty early on. --Unless you believe he really thought he was capable of finding buried treasure, which I don't. I've never been a fan and one of the great benefits of leaving mormonism was not having to suppress or try to argue myself out of my antipathy to Smith.

I think he was charismatic and had a certain genius for religious theater and used it to draw people to him. Then, finding he could pass himself off as a prophet it fed his predatory instincts. Maybe he was a little conflicted about it within himself, but I'm no longer interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt. And in taking sexual advantage of his persona he was just following a predictable script -- you can see the same pattern in the lives of medieval popes, David Koresh, on and on. Same goes for rock stars, business moguls, and presidents. It's what Me Too is all about, which is why a conversation about consent might be more productive than quibbling over the difference between an opportunist and a predator.

100% agree. Thanks for your input.

[Not Buying It]

Clearly a predator. Women weren't throwing themselves at him - he was approaching them. Much like wildebeest don't seek out lions, these vulnerable underage girls weren't seeking Joseph for sexual encounters - in each and every case, he approached them in what is best described as a predatory manner. Rock stars who take advantage of groupies who want to be exploited are opportunists - so-called prophets of God who approach young, otherwise moral young women with pretend revelations are predators.

In my book Joseph Smith was a predator, no question. Nibbler has it right:

I don't know the answer but this comes to mind...

Opportunist - taking advantage of situations as they present themselves.
Predator - creating situations that you can take advantage of.

[PalmSprings]

Don't get me wrong I'm not dismissing anyone's point of view, but I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make a determination one way or the other. There was a lot of crap said about the Mormons and Joseph Smith in particular. How true all of it is in reality is something above my paygrade since I don't have a time machine. There was a lot of fake news on both ends of the spectrum back then. A lot of very positive things were said about JS as well. I could be wrong but that's just my opinion.

[alas]

Don't get me wrong I'm not dismissing anyone's point of view, but I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make a determination one way or the other. There was a lot of crap said about the Mormons and Joseph Smith in particular. How true all of it is in reality is something above my paygrade since I don't have a time machine. There was a lot of fake news on both ends of the spectrum back then. A lot of very positive things were said about JS as well. I could be wrong but that's just my opinion.

If there was one girl, you might be able to say that and not be just defending the indefensible, but there is a clear pattern. We have the account of what Joseph told these women from enough of them to see a clear pattern. Study the real church history. I might recommend “In Sacred Loneliness” by Tod Compton. joseph Smith was a sexual predator. He lied and manipulated people to get women to have sex with him. He told them it was what God wanted and what God wants over ruled the conventional morality and the legal situation. These women were not legally married, and just because he has a sham “wedding” ceremony does not make it legal or moral. Most f the women expressed resistance or serious misgivings and had to be convinced to go along with Joseph Smith. Some were under age. Some were married to other men. By any normal standard, legal or moral, it was wrong. The only standard by which it was OK was ”do as I say because God talks to me.”

Imagine the same thing today. The guy would be prosecuted. No, I take that back, the guy would take his followers with him (Jim Jones or David Koresh style, you do realize that what triggered both of those tragedies was the “prophet” being investigated for child sex abuse) or be prosecuted.

[moksha]

If there was one girl, you might be able to say that and not be just defending the indefensible, but there is a clear pattern.

What if apologists were to argue that God wanted Joseph as a prophet because of his uncontrolled lechery?

[PalmSprings]

Don't get me wrong I'm not dismissing anyone's point of view, but I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to make a determination one way or the other. There was a lot of crap said about the Mormons and Joseph Smith in particular. How true all of it is in reality is something above my paygrade since I don't have a time machine. There was a lot of fake news on both ends of the spectrum back then. A lot of very positive things were said about JS as well. I could be wrong but that's just my opinion.

If there was one girl, you might be able to say that and not be just defending the indefensible, but there is a clear pattern. We have the account of what Joseph told these women from enough of them to see a clear pattern. Study the real church history. I might recommend “In Sacred Loneliness” by Tod Compton. joseph Smith was a sexual predator. He lied and manipulated people to get women to have sex with him. He told them it was what God wanted and what God wants over ruled the conventional morality and the legal situation. These women were not legally married, and just because he has a sham “wedding” ceremony does not make it legal or moral. Most f the women expressed resistance or serious misgivings and had to be convinced to go along with Joseph Smith. Some were under age. Some were married to other men. By any normal standard, legal or moral, it was wrong. The only standard by which it was OK was ”do as I say because God talks to me.”

Imagine the same thing today. The guy would be prosecuted. No, I take that back, the guy would take his followers with him (Jim Jones or David Koresh style, you do realize that what triggered both of those tragedies was the “prophet” being investigated for child sex abuse) or be prosecuted.

Fair enough. As stated before I respect the opinions on here. Personally I just don't feel comfortable enough to make a clear determination one way or the other.

[PalmSprings]

If there was one girl, you might be able to say that and not be just defending the indefensible, but there is a clear pattern.

What if apologists were to argue that God wanted Joseph as a prophet because of his uncontrolled lechery?

There is always that percentile that will throw away all critical thinking to support their views. I'm not sure if I can say there is a clear pattern. To be clear I'm not sure I trust the sources on either side of the argument. Those being the Church apologists and the church detractors. The truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle. I know my middle of the road stance is probably unpopular, but if JS was a real predator, the universe tends to take care of people like that.

[Just This Guy]

If there was one girl, you might be able to say that and not be just defending the indefensible, but there is a clear pattern.

What if apologists were to argue that God wanted Joseph as a prophet because of his uncontrolled lechery?

There is always that percentile that will throw away all critical thinking to support their views. I'm not sure if I can say there is a clear pattern. To be clear I'm not sure I trust the sources on either side of the argument. Those being the Church apologists and the church detractors. The truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle. I know my middle of the road stance is probably unpopular, but if JS was a real predator, the universe tends to take care of people like that.

My question to you is if you don't trust church sources and you don't trust detractors, what would you trust? What would you consider sufficient evidence to say that JSjr was a sexual predator? And if that evidence were be provided, would you agree with the conclusion?

[moksha]

I'm not sure I trust the sources on either side of the argument. Those being the Church apologists and the church detractors. The truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle. I know my middle of the road stance is probably unpopular, but if JS was a real predator, the universe tends to take care of people like that.

In the 19th Century, there was a property dispute over lands at Independence, Missouri. During the course of the trial, the LDS Church submitted both affidavits and testimony from the polygamous wives of Joseph, who testified they were wives both in name and deed. So much for Nancy Winchester and Helen Marr Kimball's Jr. High wonder years.

Middle of the Road sounds so political. May I suggest the more apropos Head in the Sand stance?