Apostates (New thread)

[Calm]

I'll come back to your remarks tomorrow because your questions take a bit more processing and I'm pretty tired right now.

Thank you, thank you. I want to go to bed myself so now I dont' have to feel guilty about waiting around for an answer AND I dont' have to dwell on how I'll respond as I attempt to go to sleep.

Dang, I promised Orpheus or was it Chaos I would keep the chatter out of my posts if they let me into Punditcy School, so if I become dry and reserved now, blame it on that.

Add-on:

Cal,

NO, I refuse to read more, I am going to bed even if you can't resist one more response. See you sometime tomorrow or the next day (family stuff planned all day tomorrow, we'll see if the flu derails our plans yet again).

[T-Bone]

I am not an expert on Bromley, cults, or the sociology of religion. I am a spectator at best. But I have seen my share of exit stories in my time, and I would like to comment on my own experience, as it relates to people leaving the LDS church.

The exit narratives I read take on many forms. Some are a search for self-authenticity. Some are an escape from abuse. There is a whole spectrum. My exit story has changed over time because I remember things over time. Some good, some bad. When I first left Mormonism, every problem I had in my life got blamed on the LDS church. I was the cliche - the angry exmo. Over time, I have learned to examine those formative events and separate which ones happened in church and which ones didn't.

I have been very open here and on other boards where I discuss Momronism that my childhood was not ideal. I had several ideas about religion that were incorrect. Some of them came from a babysitter who was a member of another religion. Some came from friends who had joined a very odd religion. Some of them came from my dysfunctional family. Yes, there was even alcohol abuse across many generations. Not everybody understands the dynamic, and that's OK. I wouldn't wish that kind of "understanding" on anybody. As a therapist I saw a few years ago explained it, my parents were not equipped to raise children when they had me. I'm not talking about the typical mistakes that parents make that we all laugh about later. I'm talking about whole areas of my life that had to be repaired.

It is possible that I looked to Mormonism for things that weren't there. Maybe I was looking for a better childhood. I now know that's not possible. Maybe I would be a better member if I had a better upbringing, or parents who were capable of being involved in my life. Maybe a strong adult ally would have made a difference. Who knows?

So where does all of that leave me today? Frankly, during my exit from Mormonism I started to study. I found the typical issues. So far, I have not been satisfied with the answers I've found to the point where I feel right being a member. I don't write off Mormonism, however. I might decide to come back someday.

I have learned to separate my experiences in Mormonism and my other experiences. Through that separation of events, I have gained more understanding of key disagreements I had always had with Mormonism. I've discussed those differences with people here and I believe it is pointless to bring them up at this point. They are probably the typical exmo complaints, anyway.

If I were to propose a plan for recovery from recovery from Mormonism, I would definitely include exercise. We got an exercise bike for Christmas, and when I use it I feel a lot more positive, and I feel less critical of others. My thinking is clearer, as well.

Thanks, Chaos, for the opportunity to participate in this thread.

Cheers,

T-Bone

[Calm]

My exit story has changed over time because I remember things over time. Some good, some bad.

Thank you for presenting this.

This is actually what I expect to hear when I hear of people leaving the church, this sense of a journey of resolvement and future anticipation of closure AND development though with some uncertainty, as well as an expression of continuing curiosity for a variety of reasons and where their religious experience is part of a spectrum of experiences, not the only mentioned or ultimate source of conflict or reward or whatever.

Intellectually I can accept the existence of the "angry exmo" so it seems natural for you to refer to it as a past phase but it is always a surprise when I come across an active one (I'm not saying that I therefore emotionally reject them, just that I'm surprised; most likely will try to get more info so I can replace that surprise with understanding).

Perhaps it's because I think of anger as such a waste of time and effort. I understand the getting angry, but the staying angry where the anger is the main object being expressed--I appraise this by the amount of effort put into this in comparison to other neutral or positive subjects--and even at times appearing to cultivate it intentionally in oneself and others....this really disturbs me, so thank you for demonstrating again that it is possible that people can move past this and aren't trapped in this habit of response as it sometimes seems due to the repetition over time.

And perhaps it's why I am finding the idea of the "apostate narrative" rather fascinating because it seems an effort--conscious or not--to maintain or increase the experience of being a victim (in real, exaggerated or created cases) and thus increase the sense of anger.

What does someone get out of doing it? (If something doesn't work for us in getting that 'reward', we wouldn't be doing it....that is not to say that it works well, just enough to perpetuate the behaviour). This is something from all this quotation going on, it appears that the sociologists are working on finding out pretty effectively.

[beastie]

NH,

I must have misunderstood one of your earlier posts because I thought you indicated that you weren't going to continue participating. That's the main reason I didn't pursue it. If you want to pursue it we can, I just didn't want to keep posting about your comments if you weren't going to continue responding yourself.

Here are my thoughts, if you're interested. I've already made it plain I disagree with your primary idea that an outspoken, visible critic must be angry, or some other negative state, and "not a happy camper". Of course, that doesn't mean I believe they never feel a moment of anger, but just that anger is not some sort of semi-permanent state for them and their continued criticism is not a sign of emotional dysfunction (not a happy camper). But there's not much we can do about that except agree to disagree. We're talking about internal, invisible states, after all, and you're using "clues" that, to you, mean "anger" or "hostility", or whatever negative term you prefer. So perhaps what we can do is talk about the "low class tactics" that you think betrays these negative states. Can you clarify what you mean by that by sharing examples? I have ideas of what I think you mean, but before taking time and going into those I'd rather find out we're on the same page.

[Nighthawke]

NH,

I must have misunderstood one of your earlier posts because I thought you indicated that you weren't going to continue participating. That's the main reason I didn't pursue it. If you want to pursue it we can, I just didn't want to keep posting about your comments if you weren't going to continue responding yourself.

Here are my thoughts, if you're interested. I've already made it plain I disagree with your primary idea that an outspoken, visible critic must be angry, or some other negative state, and "not a happy camper". Of course, that doesn't mean I believe they never feel a moment of anger, but just that anger is not some sort of semi-permanent state for them and their continued criticism is not a sign of emotional dysfunction (not a happy camper). But there's not much we can do about that except agree to disagree. We're talking about internal, invisible states, after all, and you're using "clues" that, to you, mean "anger" or "hostility", or whatever negative term you prefer. So perhaps what we can do is talk about the "low class tactics" that you think betrays these negative states. Can you clarify what you mean by that by sharing examples? I have ideas of what I think you mean, but before taking time and going into those I'd rather find out we're on the same page.

Beastie,

This isn't about me. It is about the definition of an apostate. I read the definition which was posted and interpreted it. Look at the language used: defector, outspoken, visible critic, oppositional movement and seeking to soil something. (This is a polite way of saying the neighbour's dog just pooped on my lawn.) The author's choice of vocabulary is crystal clear and demonstrates two things: 1) action, and 2) negativity.

If you disagree and see the definition in a positive light, then by all means show me.

As for the "oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups" (ie. I quipped low-class tactics) surely the author has provided numerous examples in the book to support his statement?

[beastie]

A few more comments I wanted to add to my response to cal above -

To follow my train of thought about the oppositional coalition not being willing to use the narrative if it does not meet their criteria. If the individual wants, they can publish their narrative on their own - through mass media or the internet. But then it no longer meets the criteria of what constitutes an "apostate narrative". So while narratives may demonstrate the continuum, it's only one particular type of narrative that can fit the definition of "apostate narrative". That is, of course, using the Bromley model.

One of the reasons I do not believe juliann understands this, or is altering the meaning without alerting us, is due to the examples she's used in the past of apostate narratives. I'm going to share again Roger Loomis' statement which she labeled an apostate narrative.

zarahemlacitylimits.com/RogerLoomis1.htm

The church was established by people who left the false churches they found themselves in favor of what they believed to be the truth. Throughout the church's history, the sacrifices that Mormons have made for what they believed to be the truth should be held in reverence by all.And that is what Mormonism is all about.The church itself isn't a culture that was passed on to us that we pass on to others. It is an expression of what we believe is the fundamental nature of truth and reality. We value the truth so much that one of the main missions of the church to proclaim the gospel to anybody who will listen. We make huge sacrifices to convince the world that we have a better way.In a sentence, Mormons believe more than anything else that the truth matters. It matters so much that we have to be willing to leave economic well being, friends, family, and even our religious heritage to embrace it. It matters so much that we must leave the comfort of keeping our beliefs private and proclaim them to those who see things differently.We see then that people who leave the church but don't leave it alone aren't fighting against the culture and ideals in which they were raised. Rather, they are embracing it--they are honoring the integrity of the true believers of the church throughout its history by actively living and preaching the truth that they see.

There are so many reasons that this does not fit the criteria of an "apostate narrative" using the Bromley framework. In fact, it has none of the elements whatsoever. There is no captivity tale, which is the ritualistic atonement offered to explain one's involvement in the NRM to begin with. There is no atrocity tale that shares stories so horrific to convince the host society that intervention is required, despite our respect for freedom of religion and expression. In fact, it contains some very flattering statements about Mormonism itself. (and, btw, NH, contains a way to understand why people may persist to provide information that has nothing to do with anger or negative states).

Juliann seemed to think this was an apostate narrative because:

Besides a very strained apologetic, this is an excellent example of this consistent behavior cited above

citation:

Apostates may pursue a variety of strategies to solidify their careers: consolidating their experience and acquiring credentials that support a more permanent social niche; reconstructing their position and experience within the organization, particularly status inflation, so that their testimony becomes more valuable in sanctioning the organization; modifying the narrative content so that it appeals to the specific interest of one or more elements of the oppositional coalition; and embellishing the narrative so as to maintain niche viability, particularly when the existence of a cohort of apostates creates role competition.

Juliannâ??s additional comments.

He certainly did not leave Mormonism with that narrative. There is an element that likes to think they are doing "good" and need to self-authenticate. Loomis is appealing to this element. He certainly did not leave Mormonism with that narrative...it was carefully crafted which is why it sounds so...crafted.

What I see with the apostates who form or join these followings is that they mirror the development of new religious movements...including the really poor apologetics that they all begin with. Mormons have the advantage of always having had the dogs nipping at their heels so to speak....we have been pushed to improve to the point we are heading off to graduate schools. Apostate groups are wayaaayyy behind in this...think of us as returning the favor.

Consider in particular this:

"He certainly did not leave Mormonism with that narrative...it was carefully crafted which is why it sounds so...crafted."

Juliann demonstrates here what she really thinks the term "apostate narrative" means. (and notice the supporting citation from the same text we've been discussing, so it is reasonable to assume she is using the phrase in the same way) She thinks it means a story that exmormons tell later to justify themselves that has been retroactively edited and maybe even fabricated, but has nothing to do with the reality of why they really left.

As I said above, certainly every group tailors their remarks to fit their audience, we all tend to have selective memories that flatter ourselves, etc - all that is normal human behavior. But to get to the point where one can claim that the narrative is likely outright fiction - the only way to get there using the Bromley model is to claim that it fits the criteria for an "apostate narrative". That's the only one where claims of outright fictionalizing are used. (aside from the normal human tendencies above)

Here's a quote from Juliann's preferred essay, which discusses one particular phenomenon: apostate narratives that were totally fabricated, including the claim of former membership and sometimes even the existence of the organization itself (satanic movement) - "Apostates Who Never Were" by Daniel Johnson:

As far as the particularities of biographical history are concerned, we never acknowledge that the â??deanchoringâ? that takes place with the construction of apostate narrative is a matter of degree. Apostate accounts are essentially autobiographies, and autobiographies are never perfect works of non-fiction. While we may recoil from the sentiment so starkly expressed by George Bernard Shaw in his own in his own autobiography â?? â??All autobiographies are lies. I do not mean unconscious, unintentional lies; I mean deliberate liesâ? â?? there is no denying the fact that autobiographies consist of highly selective, idealized accounts of the lives of the people who write them. For the narrative theorist, it could be no other way: â??When someone tells you his lifeâ?¦it is always a cognitive achievement rather than a through-the-clear-crystal recital of something univocally given. In the end, it is a narrative achievement. There is no such thing psychologically as â??life itselfâ?.

This characterization applies doubly to apostate narratives, which are shaped by something more than just authorial vanity or constructionist endeavors. Beyond the authorâ??s basic concerns that the tales told of them coincide with what Adams calls their â??private mythologiesâ?, the autobiographical elements of apostate narratives are further shaped by a concern that the targeted religious groups be painted in the worst possible light. In this respect, every apostate account â?? even the tamest among them â?? strives to slacken the lines that tie it to its moorings in â??realâ? biographical history. The only question is, just how much slack can they give themselves? (p 118)

BTW, itâ??s clear Juliann likes this essay in particular because it is dwelling on the very point she builds up to â?? the apostate narrative cannot be trusted as factual or honest. This is an oversimplification, because any narrative may include charges and recitations that actually are true, but in general, the apostate narrative is portrayed as unreliable, even to the point of entire fabrication.

So weâ??re not talking about normal human tendencies to paint ourselves favorably, weâ??re talking about a phenomenon that goes beyond even that. They must paint the organization in the â??worst possible lightâ?. Why? Because that is what the oppositional coalition demands. They demand horrific tales because only the truly horrific can compel the host society to intervene. If it doesnâ??t meet the criteria, they wonâ??t use it.

There is no way they would ever use a narrative like Rogerâ??s, T-bones, or even my own. These are not â??apostate narrativesâ?. If Juliann is not going to use the definition and criteria offered in the text, claiming the â??continuumâ? allows her to do so, then she cannot avail herself of the final conclusion, either.

IMO â?? that is what this is all about, and why it was worth getting the book myself to see exactly what it said. If any sociological research actually indicated that the stories exmembers tell about why they left an organization cannot be trusted on the face of it, I want to know about it, and why. But that is not what the text said at all. It is only one particular type of narrative, that has to fit certain criteria for the purpose of the use of the oppositional coalition that is suspect. And even that cannot be claimed to be fictitious just due to the source.

From Bromleyâ??s intro:

The focus of analysis in this volume is the role of apostates in the controversy surrounding those contemporary new religious movements that are deemed â??subversiveâ?. Both â??apostateâ? and â??subversiveâ? have very specific meanings here. The analytic category â??subversiveâ? is used in this volume to refer to organizations that are perceived and labeled â??subversiveâ? by oppositional groups as a tactic for status degradation that legitimates implementation of extraordinary social control measures. The typology of organization and corresponding exit role types identifies apostasy as a unique social form that emerges under very specific social conditions. Apostate refers not to ordinary religious leavetakers (the general referent) but to that subset of leavetakers who are involved in contested exit and affiliate with an oppositional coalition. The number of individuals playing this role in any given conflict may not be large; indeed, in a number of movements one or a small handful of individuals have dominated this countermovment niche. The role is distinguished not by the number of individuals occupying it but rather by its recurrence in situations of intense conflict to countersubversion campaigns.

In fact, Mauss states:

The apostate role is typically not only the most acrimonious of the three types, but in its fullest sense it requires an external, oppositional organization or coalition to embrace the apostate and to lend credence and legitimacy to the typical â??captivity narrativeâ? explaining both the erstwhile affiliation and the eventual departure of the apostate. (p 5552)

If all the â??apostate narrativeâ? means is the story exmormons tell about why they left the church, why is any oppositional group required at all for its creation? In fact, with the internet, any individual can post their own narrative on a web page. This is really crucial to understanding the theory.

Why does the apostate role, as defined by Bromley, requires an external oppositional coalition, if all it means is the stories exmormons tell about why they left the church?

[beastie]

This isn't about me. It is about the definition of an apostate. I read the definition which was posted and interpreted it. Look at the language used: defector, outspoken, visible critic, oppositional movement and seeking to soil something. (This is a polite way of saying the neighbour's dog just pooped on my lawn.) The author's choice of vocabulary is crystal clear and demonstrates two things: 1) action, and 2) negativity.

If you disagree and see the definition in a positive light, then by all means show me.

As for the "oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups" (ie. I quipped low-class tactics) surely the author has provided numerous examples in the book to support his statement?

"Soil the identity" is definitely the attempt to portray the organization in a negative light. The negative information may actually be true, or it may be false. But within the context of the apostate narrative as defined within the text, "soil the identity" means to ascribe behavior so horrific to the organization that the host society will feel compelled to step in and intervene. It doesn't just mean "say bad things about the group". I tried to tease this difference out with my questions about the difference between a whistleblower and an apostate. Both are sharing negative information about the organization, and both do it in a visible manner. Yet, within the text, it is the apostate that does so to "soil the identity', so it means something more than just "say bad things about". It means to say horrific things - atrocity tales, captivity tales (and please do not dilute this to mean social programming done in childhood - that is NOT an atrocity tale that would move society to intervene - this is what is meant by brainwashing:

From Wright's essay page 98

For the apostate, oneâ??s previous involvement in a NRM is readily dismissed or discredited as a pseudo-conversion resulting from deceptive â??mind controlâ? practices. The account is formulated in a captivity narrative emphasizing the alleged manipulation, entrapment, and capture of the idealistic and unsuspecting target. Personality factors or defects may be identified as contributing to heightened vulnerability of some individuals, including dependency needs, unassertiveness, gullibility, low tolerance for ambiguity, cultural disillusionment, na

[beastie]

And perhaps it's why I am finding the idea of the "apostate narrative" rather fascinating because it seems an effort--conscious or not--to maintain or increase the experience of being a victim (in real, exaggerated or created cases) and thus increase the sense of anger.

What does someone get out of doing it? (If something doesn't work for us in getting that 'reward', we wouldn't be doing it....that is not to say that it works well, just enough to perpetuate the behaviour). This is something from all this quotation going on, it appears that the sociologists are working on finding out pretty effectively.

I had already created a response to this and lost it in a power surge, so this will be briefer (which may be better, maybe I need power surges to discipline my writing)

Remember I'm responding with the understanding that you are using "apostate narrative" in the Bromley sense.

You have to remember that these individuals joined an NRM that isn't just a regular old non-dominant religion - it's a movement in opposition to society's values and goals, and normally totally removes its converts from society in some sort of communal setting. So the individual already abdicated a former identity altogether and created a new one within the NRM. Both Bromley and Richardson mention the communal aspect. In a way, that new identity was already based on a rejection of and opposition to something: mainstream society.

So when that person leaves the organization, they are truly left without an identity. Remember, we're talking about someone who left behind family, friends, education, career, etc to join the NRM. Then they come back to a society that already thinks there is something wrong with them for joining that "kooky" or outright dangerous group to begin with. So they have to negotiate a new identity, and some choose another identity based on opposition and rejection - this time of the NRM.

It's too simplistic to say it's all about anger, or remaining a victim. It's about the need for an identity, and how to form it. Sure, there are healthier ways to form an identity, but the fact that they already formed an entire identity within the NRM is probably a clue that it has to do more with that individual's basic psychological format to begin with. Hoffer calls them (on either side) True Believers, (which I hesitate to use because of the TBM term, but it means something different here), and speculates that it has to do with the fact that their primary identity already feels spoiled or worthless to them.

And remember - we're talking about an entire identity, not people who plunk around on the internet or attend meetings, or adopt a worldview.

[T-Bone]

Thank you for presenting this.

This is actually what I expect to hear when I hear of people leaving the church, this sense of a journey of resolvement and future anticipation of closure AND development though with some uncertainty, as well as an expression of continuing curiosity for a variety of reasons and where their religious experience is part of a spectrum of experiences, not the only mentioned or ultimate source of conflict or reward or whatever.

Intellectually I can accept the existence of the "angry exmo" so it seems natural for you to refer to it as a past phase but it is always a surprise when I come across an active one (I'm not saying that I therefore emotionally reject them, just that I'm surprised; most likely will try to get more info so I can replace that surprise with understanding).

Perhaps it's because I think of anger as such a waste of time and effort. I understand the getting angry, but the staying angry where the anger is the main object being expressed--I appraise this by the amount of effort put into this in comparison to other neutral or positive subjects--and even at times appearing to cultivate it intentionally in oneself and others....this really disturbs me, so thank you for demonstrating again that it is possible that people can move past this and aren't trapped in this habit of response as it sometimes seems due to the repetition over time.

And perhaps it's why I am finding the idea of the "apostate narrative" rather fascinating because it seems an effort--conscious or not--to maintain or increase the experience of being a victim (in real, exaggerated or created cases) and thus increase the sense of anger.

What does someone get out of doing it? (If something doesn't work for us in getting that 'reward', we wouldn't be doing it....that is not to say that it works well, just enough to perpetuate the behaviour). This is something from all this quotation going on, it appears that the sociologists are working on finding out pretty effectively.

I can offer my opinion as to what people get as a reward. Emotionally charged decisions seem to require continued justification. If I lived around family (mostly LDS) I would constantly be asked why I'm not going to church. My family seems to have no boundaries when it comes to asking questions that I think should only come from a bishop. I'm referring to worthiness questions. Maybe that's ok for some people. It's not ok with me. So if I got frustrated with my family, I might complain or look for more reasons to stay out, effectively justifying my decision to leave. I don't see it so much as a perpetuating the sense of victomhood. I see it as jusifying an emotionally charged decision.

I can see how a captive narrative would have some credibility. There are some that don't have any credibility. Adult converts, for example. Nobody is forcing them to do anything against their will. They live at home, not in a commune like in a brainwashing cult. But if a person is raised in an LDS family that happens to be abusive, they have a credible captive narrative. If a woman is in a relationship with an abusive priesthood holder, she has a credible captive narrative. Is it fair to blame the religion? No. Does it happen?

Let me also interject an opinion about exiting a religion that has been colored by the recovery climate in the US. People call leaving Mormonism recovery. That makes religion sound like an addiction or something. Pop culture tells addicts that they are not to blame for their addiction. "Gambling is a disease. It's not your fault." This helps to assuage the guilt of spending one's life savings gambling online, but if taken to the extreme it takes away any responsibility I might have for my own actions. After all, "I was brainwashed." If I am to be rigorously honest with myself, I am able to admit that I was not brainwashed. I was influenced by certain things I heard, but I was certainly not brainwashed.

A people pleaser, for example, might take on way too much responsbility. People pleasers do not have the ability to say no. If I have family, work, and parenting obligations, and then the bishop's executive secretary calls me and says the bishop wants to see me, I might go in thinking, "I wonder what he wants. I hope he doesn't have a calling for me. I'll just have to say no. I can't possibly do anything more than I'm already doing right now." And I find myself walking out of the bishop's office, shaking his hand and thanking him for calling me to be a Sunday School teacher. If I were a good member, I'd prioritize. I might say no to the next PTA request so I could spend the time preparing to teach those little minds to love God. I'd put my church calling first. I might not sign up all of my children to play sports in different parts of the city on the same day. There are things that I can do, but a people pleaser doesn't see it that way. Upon exiting, a person who is really learning how to not be a people pleaser might blame Mormonism. "They say you should never refuse a calling." Do I stop and think that I was not prioritizing? No. Do I take responsibility for being spineless? Never! Who would ever do that?

Hopefully, somewhere along the line, we learn to be rigorously honest with ourselves. Hopefully, the exmo learns to place blame where it belongs. I will have to accept the fact that I have made mistakes. I have to admit that the bizarre things I heard about rock music didn't come from a Sunday school lesson, but from a babysitter who went to a completely different church. I have to realize that some things that my Sunday school teacher said were just his opinion. I dont know if everybody who is in a bad place to begin with is going to take the time to separate those things.

There are ups and down in any journey. One Sunday, I may wake up to cold weather and find myself really glad that I don't have to get all the kids ready to go to church. The next day, I might get an email from a relative that sets me off.

Just as somebody with faith might look at issues in his religion and blow things off, a critical part of the early exmo narrative is denial that anything good came from our association. Therefore, we get complaints about every miniscule aspect of Mormonism. Some of the complaints I've had have been legitimate, some have not.

Justification, justification, justification. We all seem to do it, to a greater or lesser degree. Nobody wants to admit to being wrong. Many of us will go to all lengths to prove that "I made the right decision, by golly!"

We also have to realize that there is a constant influx of people on exmo boards. I might see 24/7 venting. Does that mean that all the people on that board complain 24/7? Nope. Are there chronic complainers? Sure! Are there people who vent and then leave? Sure. Are there people who occasionally need to vent? Ditto!

Cheers!

T-Bone

[beastie]

T-bone,

I just want to thank you for speaking from the heart. Sometimes on boards like this we get so divided into our opposing world views that it's hard to do that. It's really nice to see it happen now and then.

[juliann]

There is no way they would ever use a narrative like Rogerâ??s, T-bones, or even my own. These are not â??apostate narrativesâ?.

This is going to stop now. I've explained this so many times it has reached the point of intellectual dishonesty to continue to throw in red herriings like this to dilute the argument. T-Bone is not an apostate by any definition. I have brought up two names, Benson and McCue that are well known and available because I am not about to analyze every name you throw up. Of course T-Bone's narrative is not an apostate narrative. To imply that I am calling it such is irresponsible and inflammatory and that kind of dirty trick debate tactic is going to stop right now, Beastie.

[beastie]

This is going to stop now. I've explained this so many times it has reached the point of intellectual dishonesty to continue to throw in red herriings like this to dilute the argument. T-Bone is not an apostate by any definition. I have brought up two names, Benson and McCue that are well known and available because I am not about to analyze every name you throw up. Of course T-Bone's narrative is not an apostate narrative. To imply that I am calling it such is irresponsible and inflammatory and that kind of dirty trick debate tactic is going to stop right now, Beastie

I never said that you labeled T-bone's narrative an "apostate narrative". I was trying to illuminate the difference between an "exmormon narrative" and an apostate narrative.

You did say Roger's narrative was a good example of an apostate narrative. Please take the time to explain why you think that constitutes an apostate narrative. Or analyze my narrative - you stated that the apostate category fits me perfectly. Explain why, and that will help me understand what you think apostate narrative means.

[Nighthawke]

"Soil the identity" is definitely the attempt to portray the organization in a negative light. The negative information may actually be true, or it may be false. But within the context of the apostate narrative as defined within the text, "soil the identity" means to ascribe behavior so horrific to the organization that the host society will feel compelled to step in and intervene. It doesn't just mean "say bad things about the group". I tried to tease this difference out with my questions about the difference between a whistleblower and an apostate. Both are sharing negative information about the organization, and both do it in a visible manner. Yet, within the text, it is the apostate that does so to "soil the identity', so it means something more than just "say bad things about". It means to say horrific things - atrocity tales, captivity tales (and please do not dilute this to mean social programming done in childhood - that is NOT an atrocity tale that would move society to intervene - this is what is meant by brainwashing:

From Wright's essay page 98

So, within the framework of the bromley model, "soil the identity" means to tell such horrific stories of brainwashing and abuse (normally child abuse) that the host society MUST intervene.

But you don't appear to be interpreting "soil the identity" in that way. You seem to interpret as simply sharing negative information about the organization. If I'm wrong, correct me. So that would mean that a whistleblower is as dysfunctional as the apostate - angry, or whatever negative emotional state you prefer. But reality is that noble motivations (and I use that term knowing it tends to "set off" believers when it is used in conjunction with exiters, but it is the best term) may be the impetus in sharing negative information, not anger or the desire to be perceived as victim.

And, in fact, the motivation for the apostate in the Bromley sense of the word isn't necessarily about anger, either, but the need to create a new identity, because the old identity was entirely based on the former organization. All other identifiers - family, friends, school, career - were abdicated for the NRM. So now a new identity must be formed.

This is why I've been so fussy about terminology, and whether or not Juliann is using the Bromley model. Everything changes when you alter - even slightly - the meaning of some of these words - to the point where it really is hard to answer questions because you no longer are certain exactly what the person is asking.

Beastie,

You're personalizing things again.

My question was "As for the "oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups" (ie. I quipped low-class tactics) surely the author has provided numerous examples in the book to support his statement?"

Does the author provide examples to support his statement?

[juliann]

Perhaps I can add some comment by way of clarification, which has already been done, but maybe I can do it concisely in my words, which may or may not help. The "apostate narrative" as defined by Bromley has certain accompanying criteria, as defined in the "atrocity tale", which includes "brainwashing", compulsion, and physical harm, to name a few. Exit from a cult, sometimes forcefully, and even against the then will of the participant, and subsequent "deprogramming" eventually leads to the atrocity tales, encouraged by "exit counselors" (such as Steve Hassan). These tales are sometimes exaggerated, and as beastie pointed out, in some circumstances even fictional. This definition by Bromley seems quite clear (I haven't read the book, but I've read every excerpt posted by beastie over the last week or so, and as you know they have been quite lengthy).

First, others do not require anything more radical for "brainwashing" than the accusations we read on RFM. These same scholars are using the Bromley model in his book. Second, the author who does talk specifically about Mormons while using the Bromley model in his book allows for modern Mormon apostates. I'm not going to belabor this point further. If an author in the very book Beastie claims does not allow for something is allowing for it...that is enough. The impression is being given that all of this is Bromley's invention, thus, limiting it to Bromley's conclusions. He certainly has compiled and enhanced (as the authors in his book continue to do) but he is not the inventor of all of this and that is made very clear in the book (Coser and Shupe are credited along with Bromley, for instance). It is pointless to keep regurgitating this. Even if I did concede that none of the above is true, it is irrelevant to what else is out there. So, I'm done with "Bromley".

On to Wilson who discusses Mormons along with Moonies and Scientologists, etc. He uses the term "sect" to denote religious movements that have increased tension with their host society (or as compared to entrenched religions). One reason for tension....

The obtrusiveness and the intrusiveness of all these groups is perhaps a major source of public irritation: movements which proselytize by less confrontational methods (for example by campaigns in public halls, leaflet distribution, and commercial radio evangelism) produce less tension. Even so, the very fact that sects are seeking to convert people gives rise to vague disquiet among the public at large. People resist the idea that they ought to be changed, and attribute dubious motives to those who wish to effect such change. It is widely asserted, particularly by the relatives of converts, that those who have undergone a conversion experience have in some way been â??got atâ??, have been misled, duped, taken advantage of, or have, in contemporary parlance, even been â??brainwashedâ??. Converts who later apostatize regularly explain their conversion in terms either of diminished personal responsibility (â??they came when I was depressedâ??; â??under strainâ??, â??experiencing difficultiesâ??) or of deception, exploitation, and manipulation. This is the limited repertoire of motives which allow the apostate to claim his own self-esteem and to reclaim his reputation with others. The Press, the anti-cult organizations, and the de-programmers virtually rehearse reclaimed converts in these reinterpretations of their earlier religious choice.

Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 62.

This is a very good summary of much of what is postulated by other authors in a more condensed form and without the same labels. Mormonism is specifically named and used as an example of the kind of proselyting that results in tension. (Wilson also points out that those sects who do not proselyte do not necessarily fare any better, however....they are accused of secrecy. )

Wilson requires the media and anti-cult movements (ACM) to drum up the necessary tension. RFM is not only an organization (it is a NFP, for heaven's sake) it is certainly an "anti-cult" movement by definition. The emphasis on the numbers of hits and posts along with the concerted effort to attract media attention puts them squarely in the ACM camp, thus, providing a forum and training ground for apostates.

[juliann]

From Bromleyâ??s intro:

In fact, Mauss states:

If all the â??apostate narrativeâ? means is the story exmormons tell about why they left the church, why is any oppositional group required at all for its creation? In fact, with the internet, any individual can post their own narrative on a web page. This is really crucial to understanding the theory.

Why does the apostate role, as defined by Bromley, requires an external oppositional coalition, if all it means is the stories exmormons tell about why they left the church?

You need to start give page numbers.

1. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it.... The internet is no more significant than writing a letter without organization backing for visibility. Does that really need to be said?

2. One more Bromley from the introduction pg 5:

"The analytic category "subversive" is used in this volume to refer to organizations that are perceived and labeled "subversive" by oppositional groups as a tactic for status degradation that legitimates implementation of extraordinary social control measures."

Now is there one person here who thinks ACMs are in it to do anything but that? What Beastie wants to use as a criteria is their success at doing it. I am using their intent because their success is often dictated by temporal and spatial constraints...and fortunately, the courts. A Waco event would not happen today but the group has not changed, the press has. No author is going to try to make this a one size fits all exercise as Beastie is trying to do. It is a here today and gone tomorrow proposition.

[beastie]

First, others do not require anything more radical for "brainwashing" than the accusations we read on RFM. These same scholars are using the Bromley model in his book. Second, the author who does talk specifically about Mormons while using the Bromley model in his book allows for modern Mormon apostates. I'm not going to belabor this point further. If an author in the very book Beastie claims does not allow for something is allowing for it...that is enough. The impression is being given that all of this is Bromley's invention, thus, limiting it to Bromley's conclusions. He certainly has compiled and enhanced (as the authors in his book continue to do) but he is not the inventor of all of this and that is made very clear in the book (Coser and Shupe are credited along with Bromley, for instance). It is pointless to keep regurgitating this. Even if I did concede that none of the above is true, it is irrelevant to what else is out there. So, I'm done with "Bromley".

Refresh my memory. Are you basing this conclusion on this passage:

The apostate accounts here considered accord with the other representatives of the genre in that they all follow the basic outlines of the â??captivity narrative.â? The protagonistsâ??acting in accordance with their own desires and without any foreknowledge of potential dangerâ??follow the representatives of the religious group sin question into â??captivity.â? There they are subjected to increasingly manipulative techniques designed to make them true followers, and for a time these techniques hold. Eventually, however, they â??wake upâ? to find themselves isolated from all aid and subjugated to the perverse demands of religious leaders who have revealed themselves for who they truly are. Somehow, the protagonists are rescued or mange to escape. Finally, under the dramaturgical supposition that the real captivity in question is as much mental, emotional, or spiritual as anything else, the stories culminate with the protagonistsâ?? dramatic renunciations of their former beliefs, practices, and adherences.

Daniel Carson Johnson, â??Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives,â? in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 123.

[beastie]

I will try to remember page numbers for each and every citation. I know I have been extraordinarily negligent in that regard, unlike yourself, who always uses page numbers.

"The analytic category "subversive" is used in this volume to refer to organizations that are perceived and labeled "subversive" by oppositional groups as a tactic for status degradation that legitimates implementation of extraordinary social control measures.

Now is there one person here who thinks ACMs are in it to do anything but that? What Beastie wants to use as a criteria is their success at doing it. I am using their intent because their success is often dictated by temporal and spatial constraints...and fortunately, the courts. A Waco event would not happen today but the group has not changed, the press has. No author is going to try to make this a one size fits all exercise as Beastie is trying to do. It is a here today and gone tomorrow proposition.

Bromley's statement about ACMs:

It was the families of NRM members that first mobilized to oppose NRMs in response to conversions that they interpreted at total, permanent changes in loyalty. Rather quickly a loose confederation of family-based voluntary associations formed, which gradually evolved into a national anti-cult movment (ACM) to orchestrate the countersubversion campaign\ against NRMs. The problem that the ACM faced was that constitutional protection of religious liberty precluded the creation of a governmental regulatory agency that could act for the constellation of groups with an interest in controlling NRMs. The ACM pursued a variety of strategies through which to legislate distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate religious groups and between conversion and brainwashing. However, these efforts were largely unsuccessfully. Even the apocalypse at Jonestown, which exceeded in carnage even the ACMâ??s direst predictions, failed to galvanize governmental action.

Left with few viable avenues of appeal to public officials, the ACM attempted to ensconce itself as a social control organization, assuming the functions of an information clearinghouse, lobbying group, accrediting agency, and policing unit. In these various capacities the ACM was variably successful. It did become a major source of public information about NRMs, significantly shaping public opinion. The countermovement also scored some successes in lobbying public officials. On a number of occasions state and federal legislative hearings and investigations were held that showcased ACM claims and grievances. Indeed, at the height of the cult controversy, media coverage and legislative hearings functioned as public degradation ceremonies dominated by elements of the countermovement coalition. The ACM also assumed a more militant, activist role as the deputized agent of families in orchestrating the physical extraction of NRM members. During the 1970s the ACM was relatively successful in extracting members from NRMs, but over time, resistance intensified to what amounted to delegation of police power to a private group.

The foundation on which ACM organization and its organizational initiatives rest is a cult/brainwashing ideology that labels NRMs as Subversive organizations by distinguishing what are depicted as pseudo-religious groups (â??cultsâ?) from their legitimate church counterparts and pseudo-conversions (â??brainwashingâ?) from legitimate spiritual transformations. According to this ideology, rapidly growing cults are unprecedented in their totalistic organization, manipulative tactics, and psychological destructiveness. The most significant distinguishing characteristic attributed to cults is a potent psychotechnology (brainwashing techniques) capable of dramatically altering individual belief and behavior and of creating long-term emotional damage to anyone subjected to it. Unscrupulous gurus are ultimately responsible for developing these techniques to exploit innocent followers for their pleasure, power, and profit, with innocent and vulnerable young adults (â??childrenâ?) as the primary targets. The rapid growth in size, wealth, and power of cults poses an even greater threat to both individuals who become enmeshed in them and to social institutions which they infiltrate. Strong countermeasures â?? warning families of the dangers, rescuing individuals incapable of extricating themselves, and revision of laws and constitutional privileges behind which they hide â?? are advocated. The cult/brainwashing ideology serves as the symbolic umbrella under which the disparate groups arrayed against NRMs unite (p 40)

He also states that the ACM is the regulatory unit for "theological purity"

One result of restrictions on external political regulation is that independent groups approximating regulatory agencies have been formed within the religious institution sector, most frequently formed by elements of the conservative Christian tradition. Within the conservative Christian community the sacred text is taken as literal truth; it constitutes the ultimate basis for authorizing social relations and serves as the source of the received spiritual traditions that underpins religious legitimacy. These churches therefore are implacably opposed to legitimating alternative versions of the sacred texts. Various conservative Christian organizations â?? such as the Christian Research Institute, Moody Bible Institute, Christian Apologetics and Information Service, and Spiritual Counterfeits Project â?? have been formed to defend the theological boundaries of â??legitimate Christian churchesâ?. The targets of these regulatory efforts traditionally have been sectarian churches such as the Jehovahâ??s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-Day Adventists. Given cultural support for religious diversity and tolerance and the increasing marginality of conservative religious forms, these religious regulatory units lack the public standing of their political counterparts. As a result, they are perceived as partisan and function without significant sanctioning power beyond the capacity to deny the mantle of legitimacy within their limited niche in the religious institution sector. (p 35)

Juliann stated:

Wilson requires the media and anti-cult movements (ACM) to drum up the necessary tension. RFM is not only an organization (it is a NFP, for heaven's sake) it is certainly an "anti-cult" movement by definition. The emphasis on the numbers of hits and posts along with the concerted effort to attract media attention puts them squarely in the ACM camp, thus, providing a forum and training ground for apostates.

Please defend your assertion that RFM is an "anti-cult" movement by definition.

In addition, clarify how RFM belongs in the apostate category rather than the whistleblower category, like Fawn Brodie.

BTW, if you're going to continue using scholars who are using the Bromley model, you're hardly "done" with bromley.

[beastie]

Beastie,

You're personalizing things again.

My question was "As for the "oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups" (ie. I quipped low-class tactics) surely the author has provided numerous examples in the book to support his statement?"

Does the author provide examples to support his statement?

I mentioned the type of examples he provided - they are often charges of child abuse, (which were often not possible to prove) or accusations of illegal activity (like putting salmonella in salad bars, which turned out to be true), or perhaps stockpiling weapons. Do you want specific passages?

[Ray Agostini]

If an author in the very book Beastie claims does not allow for something is allowing for it...that is enough.

I went back to the first page looking for the original quote, and I think this may be it:

QUOTE

â??Apostateâ? is now a term used frequently when social scientists anyalyze defectors from new religious movements. The apostate role is understood to be one in which a person exists, either voluntarily or involuntarily, an unconventional or â??newâ? religious group or movement (hereafter NRM) and then becomes an outspoken, visible critic of the latter. Moreover, such persons are understood to represent important resources for any countercult, anti-cult, or oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups.

Anson Shupe, â??The Role of Apostates in the North American Anticult Movement,â? in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 209.

(My emphasis added to quote)

Where does Mormonism rank in US religions? Fifth? Sixth? Harold Bloom in his book The American Religion:The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation classified Mormonism above all of the others mentioned in his book, and the one due the most credibility, in his opinion. So I wouldn't call Mormonism "unconventional", and not just based on this example. It seems to me he is not classifying Mormonism in this group, and I don't know if this is the quotation you refer to which "allows for Mormon apostates". You'd have to clarify that for me, remembering that I'm looking at this purely in the Bromley context.

This quotation you gave seems to give a better picture of where Mormonism may be placed, and again the bold is my emphasis:

The obtrusiveness and the intrusiveness of all these groups is perhaps a major source of public irritation: movements which proselytize by less confrontational methods (for example by campaigns in public halls, leaflet distribution, and commercial radio evangelism) produce less tension. Even so, the very fact that sects are seeking to convert people gives rise to vague disquiet among the public at large. People resist the idea that they ought to be changed, and attribute dubious motives to those who wish to effect such change. It is widely asserted, particularly by the relatives of converts, that those who have undergone a conversion experience have in some way been â??got atâ??, have been misled, duped, taken advantage of, or have, in contemporary parlance, even been â??brainwashedâ??. Converts who later apostatize regularly explain their conversion in terms either of diminished personal responsibility (â??they came when I was depressedâ??; â??under strainâ??, â??experiencing difficultiesâ??) or of deception, exploitation, and manipulation. This is the limited repertoire of motives which allow the apostate to claim his own self-esteem and to reclaim his reputation with others. The Press, the anti-cult organizations, and the de-programmers virtually rehearse reclaimed converts in these reinterpretations of their earlier religious choice.

Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 62.

"Vague disquiet" is not the same as a host society alarmed by "captivity tales" including physical or emotional abuse.

I am in agreement with T-Bone in regard to the latter part of the quote above. T-Bone wrote:

I can see how a captive narrative would have some credibility. There are some that don't have any credibility. Adult converts, for example. Nobody is forcing them to do anything against their will. They live at home, not in a commune like in a brainwashing cult. But if a person is raised in an LDS family that happens to be abusive, they have a credible captive narrative. If a woman is in a relationship with an abusive priesthood holder, she has a credible captive narrative. Is it fair to blame the religion? No. Does it happen? Let me also interject an opinion about exiting a religion that has been colored by the recovery climate in the US. People call leaving Mormonism recovery. That makes religion sound like an addiction or something. Pop culture tells addicts that they are not to blame for their addiction. "Gambling is a disease. It's not your fault." This helps to assuage the guilt of spending one's life savings gambling online, but if taken to the extreme it takes away any responsibility I might have for my own actions. After all, "I was brainwashed." If I am to be rigorously honest with myself, I am able to admit that I was not brainwashed. I was influenced by certain things I heard, but I was certainly not brainwashed.

Certainly, some narratives seek to place blame entirely on the church. I think I'm on long record, both here and on Mormon Discussions, as saying that individuals need to accept responsibility for their choices. Those born in the church, however, present a new challenge to my thinking on this, because they had no choice. I had no choice being born Catholic either, but Catholicism is not Mormonism, and is no where near as demanding of loyalty. So I'll admit I'm doing some serious rethinking about those who are "born in the covenant". I think some of their anger may be valid.

[juliann]

One more time, Beastie. The Bromley book is not a dictionary. It does not own definitions. I don't think anyone else is having difficulty with that concept. I have no problems with the Bromley book but what you do when you run out of information is start playing with word definitions and demand repeats and clarification of statements that have been made mulitple times. I'm going to use something everyone can see and which tries to give both sides. Here is the Wiki link for "anti-cult movement". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Cult_Movement

Anti-Cult Movement, sometimes abbreviated "ACM", is a term used by academic scholars to refer to a collectivity of groups and individuals that pursue an opposition to cults and new religious movements. Sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe initially defined the ACM in 1981 as a collection of groups who embrace brainwashing theory,[1] but later observed a significant shift in the ideology towards a "medicalization" of the memberships of New Religious Movements (NRM).[2]

The anti-cult movement is usually conceptualized as a collection of individuals and groups, some of which are formally organized, who are opposed to new religious movements (or "cults", respectively). This countermovement has recruited from family members of "cultists", apostates, church groups (including groups from Jewish religious organizations)[6], and associations of health professionals.[7] Although there is a trend towards globalization of the movement,[8], the social and organizational bases of the ACM vary significantly according to the social and political opportunity structures across countries.

Please notice that even Bromley has modified his position within a few years. That is going to happen at a rapid pace in such a new field. You have yet to acknowledge that anything has happened since 1998 when the book you are holding everyone to was published.

This is on RFM's main page and this is where these protestations just get silly and a big waste of time, Beastie. Get on with it. No one in their right mind would dispute RFM is an anti/counter/whatevercult group and it is not making you look particularly serious.

IS MORMONISM A CULT?

The following links are to checklists and other guidelines, to help you to evaluate whether any group (not just Mormonism) is a "cult."

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/cult101.htm

http://www.freedomofmind.com/ The home page of Steve Hassan, an authority on cults and brainwashing.

"[Hassan's] BITE Model Applied Toward Mormonism"

http://www.caicusa.org/zentry1.htm Jan Groenveld's Cult Awareness Centre

http://www.factnet.org FACTnet, resources on psychological coercion and mind control

[juliann]

Ray, Armand Mauss allows for modern Mormon apostates and he is the only one who is speaking directly about Mormons. All he is saying is that they are less common than they used to be (and I have never said they are anything but the exception) and the last time I spoke with him he acknowledged the internet has changed the picture.

What does need to be observed, however, is that as twentieth-century Mormonism moved increasingly down the Bromley continuum from its earlier Subversive character, its public exiters were less often apostates in the fullest sense of that term and more often resembled whistleblowers or even mere defectors, although, to be sure, one can see examples of all three exiting types.

Armand Mauss, â??Apostasy and the Management of Spoiled Identity,â? in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 54.

I'm going to edit in this additional quote in the hopes it will put the idea that Bromley's model can't support Mormon apostates to rest....

To the extent that such an argument [Mauss' theory of retrenchment] has validity, we should expect apostates to appear again now and then. However, since the retrenchment in question comes nowhere near a return of Mormonism to its nineteenth-century disrepute, we would not expect apostates to be common. (p 70)

Beastie is incorrect that the those using the Bromley model exclude Mormon apostates! At best, she can make it an issue of how many there are but she cannot dispute that they exist unless she wants to remove Mauss from the book she is using as her authority.

And...no one has said anger is not justified. Anger just is. But anger does not turn everyone into an apostate who makes a career or hobby out of trashing the religion they are angry at by aligning with a group or organization.

[Ray Agostini]

Julie, let me ask you this question very directly. Do you believe there should be no criticism of the Church from former members? I'm not talking about anger, or name-calling, which is clearly out of place, I'm talking about former members who feel they have been misled, or deceived, and spent their whole lives living what later turned out, for them, to be false, and then go on record (internet, articles, books, etc) about that. The example beastie gave, Roger Loomis, is what I'm talking about. I don't go for the Benson or McCue style, and I think most know how I feel about RFM, but I'm wondering about former members turned critics/skeptics, like Loomis.

Do you believe there is any validity in any criticism? I'd appreciate if you could clear this up for me, so we can understand exactly where you're coming from.

(By the way, since I haven't posted here in months, for the record I am ex-Mormon and have severe doubts and disbelief about some Mormon doctrines, but I respect the Church and feel no need to be sarcastic or nasty, and I am concerned about rising anger at the Church and seeking deeper to find the causes.)

[juliann]

Do you believe there is any validity in any criticism? I'd appreciate if you could clear this up for me, so we can understand exactly where you're coming from.

The validity? I can't invalidate someone's spiritual journey anymore than they can invalidate mine. But that is the point...what would motivate someone to invest a major part of their life trying? Are there things that are less than perfect in the church that invite criticism? Of course. And that list will be endless as long as people are running things. Is religion itself irrational to today's thinking? Silly even? Of course. Mormonism is not unique in that regard...just newer and more obvious. It is the double standards going on that are troublesome. Has the critic set up a standard that no person or organization could meet? It is one thing to be disappointed, upset, distraught...whatever...leaving anything that was has heavily invested in is disruptive and painful. But to join with others on an extended public crusade with the intent of destroying what obviously brings joy and meaning to other people is...I think..a sickness that says much more about the attacker than what they attack. I think divorce (which is far more disruptive) is a very good comparison. No one would ever think highly of someone who went public for the purpose of destroying their ex....for decades.

[juliann]

RFM has published a "book" , Suddenly Strangers: Surrendering Gods and Heroes by the Morin brothers, which can be found from its main page (I can't give links because of content). It contains elements of the exmo narrative. I think that the "brainwashing" elements tend to merge with atrocity and captivity tales in Mormon stories for pragmatic reasons. Apostates know they can't claim they were physically held so they add the elements that they were kept captive through ignorance, i.e., there is always the idea that they were held in thrall because freedom to information was denied them. This is always coupled with the claim that they left within a very short time after being given access to that information. I'm rather surprised RFM would put up something this sophomoric when they have access to much more sophisticated writers but it will serve our purposes well.

As active practicing Latter-day Saints, we were never made aware of any of the facts concerning the papyri. The general membership had no knowledge that the translation had been discredited. Had we known, I'm in hopes that we would have acted on that information.

They were held captive by lack of information that would have freed them had it been dispensed.

The true history of the Mormon Church contains a huge amount of evidence that discredit its founder and its defenders. When you add up all the major problems in The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, The Book of Abraham, Mormon History, The First Vision, and the Temple Ceremony, Mormonism loses credibility. And if that isn't enough, add murder of innocent people, the practice of Blood Atonement, and theology interwoven with racism, sexism and fear. There are over 600 major problems with the historical records of the Mormon Church. Most Mormons are totally unaware of these problems, their minds conditioned to reject everything the Church doesn't agree with.

Pretty good atrocity tale!

Within months of embarking on my own quest for truth, the distortions, cover-ups and lies began leaping off the pages at me. The Church leaders had fed us half-truths, lies and deceit. I had been spoon fed so many fables that the truth had become a stranger. I had been desensitized to the truth, brainwashed, if you will.

The requisite brainwashing charge....

Sorry, but in an open society it doesn't work that way. Once you step up on the soapbox and make a public statement, in this case a loud continuing statement [The Mormon Church is the only true church on the earth today], it is open to public scrutiny. The wilder the claim without supporting evidence, the less respect they get. If the claims are utter nonsense, and they refuse to step down, then the audience starts to throw tomatoes (figuratively). If the claims are doing, have done, or could do damage to peoples lives, then the tomatoes come hard and fast and green, as they should. The moral high ground is to expose a fraudulent organization for what it is. Their misguided impact is tremendous; the damage they have done can't be measured. We don't need to make up lies or exaggerate. The truth is bad enough."

This was just interesting because the irony of claiming that once someone makes a public statement it is open to scrutiny is lost on them because of their double standards. I have always found (as happened here again) that it is the career critics who resist scrutiny.

[Nighthawke]

I went back to the first page looking for the original quote, and I think this may be it:

QUOTE

â??Apostateâ? is now a term used frequently when social scientists anyalyze defectors from new religious movements. The apostate role is understood to be one in which a person exists, either voluntarily or involuntarily, an unconventional or â??newâ? religious group or movement (hereafter NRM) and then becomes an outspoken, visible critic of the latter. Moreover, such persons are understood to represent important resources for any countercult, anti-cult, or oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups.

Anson Shupe, â??The Role of Apostates in the North American Anticult Movement,â? in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 209.

(My emphasis added to quote)

Where does Mormonism rank in US religions? Fifth? Sixth? Harold Bloom in his book The American Religion:The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation classified Mormonism above all of the others mentioned in his book, and the one due the most credibility, in his opinion. So I wouldn't call Mormonism "unconventional", and not just based on this example. It seems to me he is not classifying Mormonism in this group, and I don't know if this is the quotation you refer to which "allows for Mormon apostates". You'd have to clarify that for me, remembering that I'm looking at this purely in the Bromley context.

Ray,

Except the definition says "an unconventional or 'new' religious group or movement". Mormonism is included in NRMs which is why it shows up in Bloom's book The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. Emergence: gradual beginning or coming forth, to come into existence.