beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 1. Child abuse2. Salmonella poisoning3. Stockpiling weapons4. Mormonism harms people5. Mormonism devastates families6. Mormonism controls minds7. Mormonism deceives the public4, 5, 6 (in the vague social programming sense, not outright "mind controL") and 7 are far too vague to merit the type of intervention that the oppositional coalition would desire.If you want a regulatory unit to "do something", you're not going to say "Mormonism harms people". What the heck does that mean? What kind of charge is that? It hurts their feelings? It lies to them? It wants 10% of their income? Extreme enough for the government, or some other regulatory unit, to intervene? Of course not. Devastate families. Just how is an external regulatory group supposed to react to that? Marrying outside one's culture often devastates families, too, you think an external regulatory unit is going to do something about that? Deceives the public??? Please. So do politicians. "Controls minds" which means "My parents and teachers pressured me to believe this and lied to me." Yeah, right. That's going to get people up in arms.But if you accuse a group of poisoning the public, of routinely abusing children, of stockpiling weapons. Hey, yeah, that will get someone's attention.You can't seriously believe that these type of vague charges (4-7) would invoke the type of outrage in the host society that would be required to restrict freedom of expression and religion. Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 If you want a regulatory unit to "do something", you're not going to say "Mormonism harms people". What the heck does that mean? What kind of charge is that? It hurts their feelings? It lies to them? It wants 10% of their income? Extreme enough for the government, or some other regulatory unit, to intervene? Of course not. Devastate families. Just how is an external regulatory group supposed to react to that? Marrying outside one's culture often devastates families, too, you think an external regulatory unit is going to do something about that? Deceives the public??? Please. So do politicians. "Controls minds" which means "My parents and teachers pressured me to believe this and lied to me." Yeah, right. That's going to get people up in arms.You can't seriously believe that these type of vague charges (4-7) would invoke the type of outrage in the host society that would be required to restrict freedom of expression and religion.Except that they aren't vague charges which is why I specifically said, "Keeping in mind the many narratives found on the RfM Internet site, rate the following atrocity/captivity charges."I'm sorry you feel that the RfM narratives rank well below someone's diarrhoea and gun collection. Somehow I doubt that the people who wrote those narratives would agree with you. Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 How grievous and larger-than-life an atrocity tale? Not very. The following example of an apostate's atrocity tale is their painting a caricature of the group/NRM:Along with formulating an acceptable public confession the apostate is likely to feel some need to account for his own conduct. Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.- David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil," in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156.Maybe you missed what Bromley and Shupe wrote above or am I the one who missed your commentary on it? Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Except that they aren't vague charges which is why I specifically said, "Keeping in mind the many narratives found on the RfM Internet site, rate the following atrocity/captivity charges."I'm sorry you feel that the RfM narratives rank well below someone's diarrhoea and gun collection. Somehow I doubt that the people who wrote those narratives would agree with you.LOL! I don't care what the associated details are, charges have to rise to the point where public safety or the physical safety of children before any reasonable person would expect a regulatory unit to take action to restrict freedom of religion and expression.This has gotten pretty silly, if you ask me. Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Juliann -I really want you to do one thing. You have ignored many of my past questions, but I think that your answer to this one would help clarify differences.You stated that Roger Loomis' narrative was a good example of an "apostate narrative':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.Can you clarify why you think this is an example of an apostate narrative? Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 NH:This was your comment:â??How grievous and larger-than-life an atrocity tale? Not very. The following example of an apostate's atrocity tale is their painting a caricature of the group/NRM:â?And your reference: Along with formulating an acceptable public confession the apostate is likely to feel some need to account for his own conduct. Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.- David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil," in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156.Iâ??m not sure what youâ??re asking. Are you asking me to comment on whether or not the apostate narrative is factually true, or do you believe this citation supports your assertion that atrocity tales donâ??t have to be larger than life and grievous? I do not believe that this citation supports your assertion that atrocity tales donâ??t have to be extraordinarily grievous at all. In regards to whether or not the atrocity tale is factually true, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isnâ??t. Some really outrageous claims turned out to be true (like the salmonella charge and shipping in busloads of homeless people to swing an election). Remember Carterâ??s caution: We should not automatically assume that a narrative is trustworthy or not because of the type of informant. Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 NH:This was your comment:â??How grievous and larger-than-life an atrocity tale? Not very. The following example of an apostate's atrocity tale is their painting a caricature of the group/NRM:â?And your reference:Along with formulating an acceptable public confession the apostate is likely to feel some need to account for his own conduct. Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.- David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J.C. Ventimiglia, "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil," in Bromley and Richardson, Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy, p. 156.I do not believe that this citation supports your assertion that atrocity tales donâ??t have to be extraordinarily grievous at all. What you believe doesn't matter. It is what Bromley and Shupe believe that matters. Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What you believe doesn't matter. It is what Bromley and Shupe believe that matters.You're going to have to explain how you think that citations says that atrocity tales don't have to be grievous. I do not see it at all . Link to comment
Ray Agostini Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I find it very ironic that I'm in a position where I feel like I'm defending RFM. Seriously, I'm not. My views on this have not changed as far as the general content of the site is concerned, some of the brash, cutting sarcasm, and especially the slander of Mormons, and some individual Mormons. That's my take. What I am seeing, however, is also a very varied mix of people posting there. Many of them have, and still post here. Minus the sarcasm, rudeness, and defiling things sacred to Mormons, they bring the same criticisms here. Is MA&D apostate? Okay, the organisational aims of RFM pointed out by Nighthawke have no comparison to MA&D, but let me suggest this: I doubt many of the posters on RFM are even aware of this. I certainly wasn't until after I started posting in 2002, and I did not agree with those aims. Anger notwithstanding (at two TBMs), it has never been my intention, and never will be, to "bring down Mormonism". It's too interesting a religion to bring down. I also know posters on RFM who have no intention of doing so, and in fact some of them still attend church with their families, or have to live with active spouses and children. This is why I'm saying it's a complex situation, one in which we can't always clearly say, "these are the apostates, and these are the defenders", and then watch them wipe each other out. I became more alerted to this by posting on MDB, and discussing this with many who had posted on RFM as well. I could be wrong, but it seems very silly to think most of these people will be crafting narratives in order to bring down a religion their relatives still honour, relatives they live with (there could of course be some exceptions). I think this is more a case of venting and expressing frustrations, and undoubtedly some anger at what they consider wasted lives. In recent times I talked to one of the blog owners I previously severely criticised, both to his face on a forum, and here on MA&D (FAIR). He has now lost interest in his "mission to Mormons", and has even retired from posting on boards. I have been no slouch in criticising people like this, but what I'm learning is the more you attack them, the more they will attack you, and the Church. It becomes a vicious cycle of verbal aggression. Our "moral panic" about apostates may be premature, and I say "our" deliberately. What most of these people want is a voice, not to bring down Mormonism. Some have been exiled from FAIR (before it became MA&D), and perhaps that has enhanced criticisms. I have been critical too of the people who I called "hypocrites" because they are active members who openly criticise the Church. I would not do it, but I am not them, and maybe I should try to understand them on their terms, not mine. If the criticism cuts so much, maybe we ought to ask why. This, by the way, I believe is not off-topic. If so you can wipe it from the discussion and I'll withdraw. The subject of the thread is "Apostates". I will have more to say about RFM later (unless I've derailed the discussion), and the complex mix of personalities evolving in this most interesting journey on Mormon-related discussion boards. Don't you think readers must be getting bored with the Bromley/Shupe only debate, which has now been going for seven pages? I think Juliann expressed the desire to get away from this pages ago. Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 You're going to have to explain how you think that citations says that atrocity tales don't have to be grievous. I do not see it at all .I don't really think I need to explain it further. The gist of it is there in my posts. I'm not sure I can be any clearer. I'm sorry you do not see it. Must be that miscommunication thing again. Can't be helped. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Juliann, perhaps we're all getting a few "mixed messages" here. For example, a while ago you posted this quoting Cowan:Are there really "130 apostate testimonies" on RFM? In the definitions we are using in this thread?Edit: By the way, I think I understand the definitions you've given, and what I'm referring to above does not necessarily have to be an atrocity tale, but an apostate who joins a coalition. What I'm saying is that if you read some of the exit stories there is no hint that all of these people consider themselves part of a coalition. And even if some are "seeking validity", that does not necessarily qualify them as apostate. And when I referred to "mixed messages", I mean the complexities of the debate may cause us to misunderstand each other at times.Ray, when I prefaced my use of Cowan with this comment, "Just as an example of how different experts use terms, here is an explanation of atrocity tale from Cowan" In other words...usage is different. Isn't that to be expected? Cowan seems to have a much more liberal take on "apostate" than we have been using here. I haven't read all of the stories on RFM so I don't know how many would be considered apostate under stricter conditions. To say that everyone who posts on RFM is an apostate is like saying everyone who posts on MADB is a Mormon. It is nonsensical. That is why I am using two very prominent names so we don't get into this never ending "yes he is, no she isn't" kind of stuff. It is unproductive and has always ended in a brawl. Nevertheless, I have demonstrated that the labeling is not static depending on the expert used which is why I feel no obligation to stay at home with Beastie and her one book...in fact, I think that is irresponsible considering the body of literature out there. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Juliann -I really want you to do one thing. You have ignored many of my past questions, but I think that your answer to this one would help clarify differences.You stated that Roger Loomis' narrative was a good example of an "apostate narrative':Can you clarify why you think this is an example of an apostate narrative?That isn't even a narrative. Certainly you wouldn't just produce part of a narrative, would you? If I recall, the discussion at the time was over the narratives changing over time to conform to the new group. But there is enough going on right now and I've already told you I'm not going to go back to old threads. Link to comment
Nighthawke Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I think Juliann expressed the desire to get away from this pages ago.That was sweet of you Ray. The peanut gallery all think she's running away scared instead. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 This is where the waters may become muddied too, because Cowan may not have written that with these sociological perspectives in mind. What Cowan considers an apostate, Bromley and Shupe might not.Yes! You are not going to find a group of scholars who line up and parrot each other. That would be career suicide for one thing. Ray, you have done enough writing and research to know how this works...maybe you can help Beastie make sense of using more than one source. Meanwhile, Beastie...we will just have to disagree about the one book you are using because it is pointless to just keep going around in circles. We have all stated our positions mulitple times. If we can't agree on the authors' meaning then it is time to move on to others. Back to Ray...do you have anyone (without using anyone we post with) that you think fits one of the author's criteria for apostate (on the internet)? Link to comment
Ray Agostini Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Back to Ray...do you have anyone (without using anyone we post with) that you think fits one of the author's criteria for apostate (on the internet)?Yes I do. I have two in mind I consider to fit the definition of apostate. All I will say is that Tal Bachman is not included. But I'm not going to name the two, because in my country we have defamation laws, and I'm not taking any chances. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yes I do. I have two in mind I consider to fit the definition of apostate. All I will say is that Tal Bachman is not included. But I'm not going to name the two, because in my country we have defamation laws, and I'm not taking any chances.Ray, any apostate is open about what they do (just as I am proud to be doing what I do). When I say right up front that an apostate narrative is comparable to a Mormon testimony I just don't get what the outrage is about. As I said before...I'm finding that outrage almost of more interest than the topic itself. I've actually had some really rewarding interactions with some of the exmos here on this topic. It is liberating to take the mystery out of conversion....it was liberating for me as a believer and it was liberating for some nonbelievers.I will have more to say about RFM later (unless I've derailed the discussion), and the complex mix of personalities evolving in this most interesting journey on Mormon-related discussion boards. It is RFM that I am most interested in because I think it replaces the old mom and pop with a printing press kind of operation. A ministry can be an apostate organization without making everyone who looks at their stuff an apostate. For those who don't like this topic, the defense has always been to accuse us of calling all ex-Mormons apostates. That has been denied so many times it isn't funny. But it is quite successful because all it takes is for one person to read the accusation and there we go again....we get stuck there. Again...what is so scary about talking openly about all of this that this tactic is used time and time again?If I need to modify my approach I will...I'm very fascinated with this topic and I want to bounce it off some other interested people. Link to comment
Ray Agostini Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Ray, any apostate is open about what they do (just as I am proud to be doing what I do). When I say right up front that an apostate narrative is comparable to a Mormon testimony I just don't get what the outrage is about. As I said before...I'm finding that outrage almost of more interest than the topic itself. I've actually had some really rewarding interactions with some of the exmos here on this topic. It is liberating to take the mystery out of conversion....it was liberating for me as a believer and it was liberating for some nonbelievers.It is RFM that I am most interested in because I think it replaces the old mom and pop with a printing press kind of operation. A ministry can be an apostate organization without making everyone who looks at their stuff an apostate. For those who don't like this topic, the defense has always been to accuse us of calling all ex-Mormons apostates. That has been denied so many times it isn't funny. But it is quite successful because all it takes is for one person to read the accusation and there we go again....we get stuck there. Again...what is so scary about talking openly about all of this that this tactic is used time and time again?If I need to modify my approach I will...I'm very fascinated with this topic and I want to bounce it off some other interested people.Julie, I confess I don't really understand the outrage against you either. In the crucible of debate there will be differences of opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion, and your firm belief. And I respect and uphold that right. Check your PM. Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 What outrage? Do you consider the fact that I believe you have misused bromley's source to be outrage, or that I have persistently argued my point a sign of outrage?This is one of those times when emotion is being predicted that is just not there.I will say one last thing about bromley, which I've stated before. I know people, including scholars, use terms in different ways. When Juliann repeatedly references sources that are clearly using the term in the manner of bromley's model, it is natural to assume that is what one means.So to compare the apostate narrative, as Bromley defined it, to the mormon testimonial narrative makes no sense to me. What larger group is demanding that it follow a carefully defined script at the risk of it simply not being used?Regarding Loomis: how do you know it has changed over time?It is RFM that I am most interested in because I think it replaces the old mom and pop with a printing press kind of operation. A ministry can be an apostate organization without making everyone who looks at their stuff an apostate. Looks at their stuff? No one ever made such a claim or insinuation. How about "everyone that posts their exit story there", or "people who post regularly there"? Or "people who have posted there over a certain period of time"? I often get the feeling that one of the determinant factors in your view is the length of time of involvement.BTW, I've never shied away from the term "apostate" in the generic sense. In fact, you and I also had another conversation long ago about just that in which I argued that an apostate is simply someone who abandoned their former faith (which the scholars agree is the generic term). It's only when the term is given a very specific sense, as in the Bromley model, that I object, because it just isn't accurate. You earlier stated on this thread (or the one in the other forum) that the description fits me perfectly. At this point, since you are apparently not relying completely on the Bromley model, perhaps it would help if you clarified just what fits me perfectly. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 I emailed Mauss about permission to put up Kevin's emails and he said he gave permission so I will pass that onto the mods. I liked what he said. He also asked to be left out of this and I hope Kevin can show at least that much respect (Armand copied him). Therefore, I can't vouch for what Kevin has made of my communications, nor can I vouch for what you have made of them. I'd prefer to keep out of any personal involvement in these blog conversations, especially when they turn personal. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 What outrage? Do you consider the fact that I believe you have misused bromley's source to be outrage, or that I have persistently argued my point a sign of outrage?No. There are actually other people around.This is one of those times when emotion is being predicted that is just not there.Which you always do...everything has to be about you, Beastie. I will say one last thing about bromley, which I've stated before. I know people, including scholars, use terms in different ways. When Juliann repeatedly references sources that are clearly using the term in the manner of bromley's model, it is natural to assume that is what one means.They are obviously putting their own spin and interpretation on it. They don't all share the same brain. That is what you are refusing to acknowledge and why everyone is tired of hearing about it.So to compare the apostate narrative, as Bromley defined it, to the mormon testimonial narrative makes no sense to me. What larger group is demanding that it follow a carefully defined script at the risk of it simply not being used?One more time...I'm not using Bromley. I am using authors who are interpreting his model. You don't want any deviation from what you think is "Bromley's model". We know. We disagree and we obviously won't agree. Move on.Regarding Loomis: how do you know it has changed over time?Looks at their stuff? No one ever made such a claim or insinuation. How about "everyone that posts their exit story there", or "people who post regularly there"? Or "people who have posted there over a certain period of time"? I often get the feeling that one of the determinant factors in your view is the length of time of involvement.I have no idea what Loomis said. For the tenth time, I'm not slogging through all of your old links. This is a new thread and I have more information now. I will be happy to admit that I was totally out to lunch on whatever it is you are talking about if that will make it easier for you to move on. OK? You earlier stated on this thread (or the one in the other forum) that the description fits me perfectly. At this point, since you are apparently not relying completely on the Bromley model, perhaps it would help if you clarified just what fits me perfectly. So that is what this is all about. You. If I said that it was obviously a big mistake and I will now run from it or hide or whatever you and your supporters on those other boards call a retraction. That is why I say right up front that I don't want any of this personalized so the topic gets lost in squabbling about who is what. There are public figures who make no bones about what they are that can be used for examples. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Orpheus said he has the Bromley email but not the Mauss email and Kevn has been banned again. Chaos isn't going to bother getting permission from Bromley since he said essentially the same thing (leave me out of it) but if Kevin wants to email that permission Chaos will put the email back up. Since I don't know Bromley I don't care enough to get involved, either.I am sure I saw an email from Mauss. Ray or Beastie if you could get it from Kevin again I'd like it back up. Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I don't have the emails, Juliann.Who do you think is outraged by this?They are obviously putting their own spin and interpretation on it. They don't all share the same brain. That is what you are refusing to acknowledge and why everyone is tired of hearing about it.Here's what I said earlier:Dec 30 2006, 11:17 PMNow of course something like the â??exmormon narrativeâ? or the â??mormon narrativeâ? exists, but in an entirely different setting. Sure, people try to fit in with their group and their communications reflect that, and sure, people have selective memories and may tend to exaggerate to be seen as acceptable, but there is no group that is demanding, more or less, a certain script at risk of just not being used. In a testimony meeting, for example, if someone strays from â??the scriptâ?, such as it may be, eyebrows may be raised and perhaps worse, but it still was able to exist in front of the population (unless it was an apostate testifying about the falseness of the church, I imagine they would be invited down from the podium). If someone goes on to RFM and happens to stray from the â??scriptâ?, they may get jumped on but their words were still able to appear on the screen.(unless they are an outright believer defending the faith) The difference is that when the oppositional coalition is using the apostate, they have to say what is wanted or it just plain doesnâ??t get used. This is why there is more risk for outright fiction, and less chance of the continuum being expressed. And this is why I think the existence of the oppositional coalition, and clarity on what that means, exactly, is so important to understand.I don't think I refused to acknowledge this point, in fact, I'm pretty certain I've said some variation of this paragraph more than once. What you refused to acknowledge is that there is a fundamental difference between the apostate narrative and "putting their own spin" on it. That difference is an oppositional coalition that will only use narratives that fit the set criteria. This isn't remotely like the Mormon conversion narrative, as far as I'm concerned, nor what could be called the "exmormon narrative." IOW, the "apostate narrative", per Bromley, really is sharing one brain.Part of what I don't understand is why you seem so determined to make the mormon narrative sociologically indistinguishable from the exmormon narrative. It seems to be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Really, if you had never supported your argument with questionable citations from the Bromley text, I wouldn't have even argued the point. Of course people try to conform to their audience. Of course people put spins on tales. Of course we all suffer from selective memory and confirmation bias. Perhaps my mistake was always in reading far too much into your theory, and accepting that it really was as simplistic as noting what seems should be obvious to any adult. But it was difficult not to read more into it based on the citations you offered to support your theory.I do have another question I hope you'll answer. You have repeatedly stated that, even aside from the Bromley model, real apostates are rare today. I'm not sure anymore what you mean by apostate, since you're not relying on the Bromley model, but aside from that, how have you arrived at the conclusion that most LDS just walk away, without apparently a backwards glance, when they lose faith in the church? Link to comment
beastie Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'd like to request this thread be moved back into the regular forum. I never quite understood the need to move it here, and since the main posters here in this particular forum are pretty much at an impasse, I'd like to open it back up to everyone. Link to comment
juliann Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 I do have another question I hope you'll answer. You have repeatedly stated that, even aside from the Bromley model, real apostates are rare today. I'm not sure anymore what you mean by apostate, since you're not relying on the Bromley model, but aside from that, how have you arrived at the conclusion that most LDS just walk away, without apparently a backwards glance, when they lose faith in the church?I put the definitions I was using in the first post in the thread where I also said this is not about the leave taker. [Ray, just thought I'd let you know there is nothing in my PM box and yours is full] Link to comment
Ray Agostini Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 [Ray, just thought I'd let you know there is nothing in my PM box and yours is full]It's okay, not important now. I don't think the PM function was working properly anyway. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.