Apostates (New thread)

[Deborah]

Are there many ex-lutheran sites, for example, on the web and such (again, honestly, there could be i have no idea). I would just wonder if this particular ex-mormon reaction is peculiar to the religion or is seen equally in among all religions.

This is a very good point. I did not acuse my prior church of misleading me or teaching me falsely even though their teachings contradicted what my own study told me. So I don't understand the ex-mos arguments that the church somehow deceived them. How? By not revealing every tiny detail of church history for which there is no factual documentation that can be relied on? It certainly can't be because these things were kept from anyone as there are others who have found and read them and weighed their merits. I was a young convert when I found all the polygamy and anti-Mormon stuff, so how can someone who is supposedly a lifelong member say they never knew about it?

If one believed the church was true at one time, then the question is on what was that belief based to begin with that it was so easily overturned?

[beastie]

Except that Bromley continues with "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."

Sorry, but to me only an angry person seeks to go that one step further and "soil the identity of specific religious groups." In this instance, Mormonism.

And that is what some online Internet message boards are all about: "soiling the identity of specific religious groups".

By the way one can be angry and yet not be hysterically or screamingly so.

Yes, that next Bromley line is very important, and what I have been trying to focus on. The differentiation is that the apostate is an important resource fo an oppositional coalition seeking to soil the identity of the religious movement.

Now, I'm going to assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you concede it is possible, in fact, most probable, that a whistleblower also shares information that "soils the identity" of the NRM. So there must exist some differentiation between how, or perhaps why, the identity is being soiled. And, IMO, that is the crux of the matter. The difference is the organization that makes use of the exiter. This is why it is so crucial to carefully define "oppositional coalition". It is the goals of this group - which is not comprised only of exmembers, but also concerned citizens - to escalate the tension between the group and the host society to the point where the host society actually utilizes regulatory units to control the NRM.

This is the crucial difference. This is why it is so important to know what Juliann means by "oppositional coalition". The fact that the most important role of the "apostate", in the Bromley sense, is as a resource for the oppositional coalition is repeated over and over in the text. Yet it keeps being ignored in this conversation. But, in the end, after analyzing all the components, it seems to be the only thing differentiating a whistleblower from an apostate. Or, to be more precise, all other differences flow from this one difference. (ie, it is oppositional coalition that influences the creation of the narrative).

Sorry, but to me only an angry person seeks to go that one step further and "soil the identity of specific religious groups." In this instance, Mormonism.

Well, that's revealing.

Remembering that the actual charges level against any group may or may not be true (just because the charges are embedded in an apostate narrative does not mean they are not factually accurate), are you willng to make this statement about any apostate from any organization? Or is it just religion? Or maybe just your religion?

The Bromley text offers some examples of former Subversive NRMs. One example was the Heaven's Gate group. Would only an angry person seek to "soil the identity" of that movement by attempting to bring public attention to the fact that an "exodus" (ie, suicide) was being planned, or that members were engaging in acts such as self-castration to maintain purity? Is it possible that individuals sometimes seek to "soil the identity" of some group because they genuinely believe it to be morally problematic in some way, and view it as their ethical responsibility to warn others?

By the way one can be angry and yet not be hysterically or screamingly so.

Yes, I know, I was just listing some of the adjectives Juliann has used to describe me. None of them are accurate.

[juliann]

name='beastiesevenofniinetrixie' date='Dec 30 2006,

You make too many generalizations to respond meaningful to. I have participated on several of these threads with you in the past and donâ??t recall anyone claiming that anti-mormons cannot be discussed (they are discussed all the time), nor have I seen anyone claim the â??right to do whatever they please without consequenceâ?. So could you provide some examples that demonstrate this behavior?

How about every thread where I have attempted to discuss apostates? Come on. Are you blind? This is the kind of neener neener irrelevant stuff that kills threads. Is that your purpose? If I haven't said something perfectly, if I have said something wrong, point it out and move on!

I know you do not like it when I refer to old threads, but I think itâ??s necessary to evaluate your present claims. This was your initial post in your first thread about this topic:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=14738

No its not. First, no one is going to slog through old threads and second, my present position is my present position. Your appeal to inerrancy is of interest considering that I think to be a countermopologist is to be somewhat of a fundamentalist....but, in the real world life goes on, people evaluate new information, read new books and reformulate and refine positions. Now you can wail that I am "running" or "admitting defeat" or whatever the heck you want. Do it and get it over with because I'm only talking about today and I have at least seven more books that I am going to incorporate and use since the thread you want to canonize.

I certainly understand the use of quotation marks around words that have a specialized definition, but look at your first paragraph is also loaded with quotation marks.

â??courageousâ? â??truthâ?, â??conscienceâ? â??helpâ? â??informâ?

OK...I will kill the quotations marks. On to the next....

This was your first post. You were framing the conversation. Is it any wonder that people believed you werenâ??t as interested in discussing anti-mormons from a sociological perspective as you were in creating a stick with which to beat anti-mormons, or, â??angry exmormonsâ??

No. No wonder at all. I failed. Miserably. Now I'm trying again. Can we get on with it?

How about if I started a thread with this:

Do you think that beginning a conversation with believers in this manner might frame the conversation in a certain negative fashion? Do you think that believers might immediately be on the defensive with this introduction? And would they be justified to be so?

Yes. Can we move on now? If you don't mind, you can just fill in a confession from me on all of your other complaiints from the last 5 years. Can we move on now?

I'm going to ask something from you. Your posts are excruciatingly long. Informative maybe...but long and message boards are not the medium for that. People aren't reading them. I'm only skimming them. Three shorter posts that stick to one point are more managable than one huge rambling cut and past job.

[beastie]

Beastie, this isn't going to go anywhere if all you are going to do is replay your old battles. I've given you my definitions time and time again. If you don't like them say so but then move on.

!. No one could possibly be confused that I am using "angry exmo" as a euphemism for descriptions of "apostate" that have been put up. And it is a little too convenient that LDS posters get it and only the countermos don't.

2. I am going to apply the literature I am using in the way I choose. If you don't like it...offer your own way and move on. I'm not just going to rely on one author. Your nagging is clogging up the thread.

Now can we get past this or not? If we can then I can move on with what you want to debate.

This is not an attempt to replay old battles. I am trying to understand how you interpret those citations, and how you define your terms. Your past definitions were from the Bromley model, although your application of them problematic, in my opinion. You then informed me that you had "moved beyond" Bromley and were using other scholars, other models, as you restate here. I am merely trying to make sure I understand exactly what your terms mean and how you are using them. I have no idea why you consider these unworthy questions. There is no way that I can possibly figure out what your point is when you refuse to answer very simple questions about the citations you felt important enough to constitute the framework of your model.

[Calm]

It has been argued recently that those on the Recovery board are sociologically identified as apostates, which would mean their atrocity tales are suspect at best. Personally, I think it is circular reasoning to assume a person is an apostate (by sociological definition) just because he or she has an atrocity tale. The question is, does that atrocity tale serve a purpose of gaining acceptance into a newfound organization or lifestyle? This particular message forum doesnâ??t seem to apply. The posters generally post and then move on with their lives, never to be heard from again.

Didn't Juliann specifically include the activities of having a yearly convention and other 'real life' activities beside message board posting? (for example, I remember--possibly incorrectly--a drive on the RFM board to put together some sort of program to target Utah teenagers for education about the realities of Mormonism as well as putting up a billboard and other stuff for the purpose of 'recruiting' for want of a better word). If so, then the organization that is being discussed at the moment includes RFM, but is not limited to it; in other words, the Exmormon.org organization.

which would mean their atrocity tales are suspect at best

Except hasn't it been made very clear multiple times that the reality of the tale is irrelevant to this topic, that the only thing being discussed are the content of the tales themselves, not truth or falseness of them. So to claim that the tales are being seen as "suspect at best" seems a different position than one being taken in these threads.

[Deborah]

Now, I'm going to assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you concede it is possible, in fact, most probable, that a whistleblower also shares information that "soils the identity" of the NRM.

Remembering that the actual charges level against any group may or may not be true (just because the charges are embedded in an apostate narrative does not mean they are not factually accurate

I find the term "whistleblower" an odd term to use for someone who leaves a faith. It is an odd term for the simple reason that faith is dependent on things outside the purview of objective investigation. I may read the same material as any apostate, but I don't have the same reaction because the object of doctrine or belief is dependent on things other than just the surface appearance. Apostate is the more appropriate term for someone who denounces their belief system and then seeks to justify that. Oh, I know that will cause a storm of protest because as has been pointed out the apostate loves to find fault without that fault being turned back on them.

[beastie]

BTW, Juliann, I meant to correct you on this earlier but kept forgetting:

You keep misattributing one citation in particular:

QUOTE

The apostate is a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a dispute, and embraces public claims making activities to attack his or her former group. Unlike typical leave takers whose responses range from indifference to quiet disenchantment, the apostate assumes a vituperative or hostile posture and pursues a moral campaign to discredit the group.

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), 109.

This was actually from Stuart Wright's essay "Exploring the Factors that Shape the Apostate Role."

Here's some more from his text, which should help highlight the "captivity narrative" in the Bromley model.

Second, it is argued that apostasy can be better understood in terms of narrative and role. The apostate, it is revealed, follows a predictable pattern or formula for post-involvement explanations of adherence to the disvalued group. This formulaic explanation is described as the â??captivity narrative, which emphasizes the alleged manipulation, entrapment, and capture of the idealistic but unwitting target of sinister â??cultâ? practices. The convert is held mentally captive in a state of alternate consciousness engineered through so-called â??trance-induction techniquesâ? (meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, self-hypnosis, visualization, controlled breathing exercises). Trance-induction techniques work to diminish natural ego-defenses, impair psychological integration, and produce a â??brainwashingâ? effect, reducing the cultist to slavish obedience, stilted affect, psychotic episodes, nervous breakdowns, delusions of grandeur, regression to childlike behavior, paranoia, and suicidal thinking The captivity narrative provides a rationale for the â??warfareâ? and â??hostage-rescueâ? motifs in which a discourse of war is invoked to describe conflicts between new religions and their detractors; cults are likened to POW camps and deprogrammings are cast as heroic hostage-rescue efforts. (p 109, 110)

(in regards to the email brouhaha) I think dart went the second mile by actually trying to get input from the authors. He obviously did not implicate any one individual nor disparage them. I think the threats should stop.

[juliann]

This is not an attempt to replay old battles. I am trying to understand how you interpret those citations, and how you define your terms. Your past definitions were from the Bromley model, although your application of them problematic, in my opinion. You then informed me that you had "moved beyond" Bromley and were using other scholars, other models, as you restate here. I am merely trying to make sure I understand exactly what your terms mean and how you are using them. I have no idea why you consider these unworthy questions. There is no way that I can possibly figure out what your point is when you refuse to answer very simple questions about the citations you felt important enough to constitute the framework of your model.

I opened the thread with the definitions I am using. Do you have any questions about those definitions? I have defined my terms multiple times. Which terms in particular do you want to hear again?

Addition to post: The terms "atrocity/captivity" tale seem to be the confusion. You seem to think no one but Bromley uses the concept. They do. Do you prefer "exmember testimony"? Pick another term. You also need to stop using "Bromley" as if it means something besides his name and his article. It is confusing. Every author adds something to the mix and you need to use their names. I will correct the attribution I messed up, thank you for pointing it out.

[Calm]

Calmoriah,

Where do I mention Juliann in the email? Where do I mention anything on this forum, in my email?

Then why would you bring it to this forum as if it had anything to do with what was being discussed here? I am sincerely confused about why, if this email has nothing to do with the conversation being talked about here, you posted it at all.

He obviously did not implicate any one individual nor disparage them.

I agree and never meant to imply (and hopefully didn't) that he had done so. Any comments I made were about the whole context of the thread. I used Juliann's comments when appropriate in that she was the thread originator and certain definitions were being used which were posted by her.

As far as having any problem with the email, I have said time and again how impressed I am when people make the extra effort and was complimentary about it happening this time. Wanting to see the actual email rather than a paraphrase, well, surely you've had enough experience how confusing even giving quotations come be. It's just an automatice request as far as I can see for most people on the board when they see something new--"call for documentation". When I used the term "concern" I meant it as I was not experiencing "suspicion". I've just been a part of too many conversations where not enough details were mentioned due to assumptions that "it was understood" only to find out people were talking about quite different things. I prefer direct quotations to paraphrases anyday to avoid potential misunderstandings (which was all that I was thinking about) as much as possible. It saves time, effort and emotions in the long run.

Well, unless someone's paranoid. (tongue firmly in cheek as I can see why my concerns might be grouped with others that were possibly leaning more toward actual misrepresentation---intentional or not--then simple misunderstanding and I am tentative here in case I've misread those posts myself)

PS: sorry if this is too off-topic, I promise I won't respond to another post on this subject at least until it's sat around for a day

[Nighthawke]

Remembering that the actual charges level against any group may or may not be true (just because the charges are embedded in an apostate narrative does not mean they are not factually accurate), are you willng to make this statement about any apostate from any organization? Or is it just religion? Or maybe just your religion?

Absolutely. Any organization. Any religion. I only mentioned Mormonism because this is, as the title implies, mainly an LDS focused message board and the topic, generally, happens to be Mormonism. Hence I wrote, "In this instance, Mormonism" implying that there are of course other instances out there, name your anti-website... there is no shortage of anger out there. Oops, outspoken critics out there willing to soil yada yada yada.

[beastie]

I opened the thread with the definitions I am using. Do you have any questions about those definitions? I have defined my terms multiple times. Which terms in particular do you want to hear again?

I want you to answer the questions I had about those citations. Those questions are meant to clarify your use of these terms.

Aren't you somewhat of a postmodernist? It would seem to me that, above all other people, a postmodernist would be sensitive to the possible ambiguity of terms, and willing, even eager, to clarify to try and attain reliable communication, as much as possible through our variable filters.

[juliann]

I'm still not sure what will explanation will satisfy you that I haven't already given. I am not using "Bromley" and have never used him as my main source (count the cites!). I have used other authors who have gone off on their own theories or modified his. We won't be going anywhere if you can't add more to the discussion than what you seem to think is exclusive to Bromley.

There has to be extrapolation but that is how research papers are created. Sources are used to support the writer's conclusions. The disagreement does not seem to be much more than your objection to my using sources in a way that you don't like and a concerted push to turn that into a failing on my part. Whatever...just keep that on the anti-MADB boards, please. I'm going to use sources and I'm going to interpret them and I'm going to apply them to Mormonism and especially Mormonism on the internet. I think it is Johnson who explains that very plainly....you want to make the label, the dictionary word the issue. But what I am looking at are the attributes. If an "oppositional organization" does a certain thing and RFM does a certain thing I don't care what you call it. They both serve the same function and meet the same criteria. I have already given you my opinon that RFM is an organization that supports and maintains apostates. That does not mean that everyone on RFM is an apostate and I'm not going to waste time explaining that anymore because it is clear from several responses that it is understandable. Nor does it matter if I am a postmodernist or a bench. It does not change what is being discussed one whit so you can dispense with the personal pokes. That isn't allowed in Pundit which is why people wanted it here.

[beastie]

I'm still not sure what will explanation will satisfy you that I haven't already given. I am not using "Bromley" and have never used him as my main source (count the cites!). I have used other authors who have gone off on their own theories or modified his. We won't be going anywhere if you can't add more to the discussion than what you seem to think is exclusive to Bromley.

There has to be extrapolation but that is how research papers are created. Sources are used to support the writer's conclusions. The disagreement does not seem to be much more than your objection to my using sources in a way that you don't like and a concerted push to turn that into a failing on my part. Whatever...just keep that on the anti-MADB boards, please. I'm going to use sources and I'm going to interpret them and I'm going to apply them to Mormonism and especially Mormonism on the internet. I think it is Johnson who explains that very plainly....you want to make the label, the dictionary word the issue. But what I am looking at are the attributes. If an "oppositional organization" does a certain thing and RFM does a certain thing I don't care what you call it. They both serve the same function and meet the same criteria. I have already given you my opinon that RFM is an organization that supports and maintains apostates. That does not mean that everyone on RFM is an apostate and I'm not going to waste time explaining that anymore because it is clear from several responses that it is understandable. Nor does it matter if I am a postmodernist or a bench. It does not change what is being discussed one whit so you can dispense with the personal pokes. That isn't allowed in Pundit which is why people wanted it here.

Each author in the Bromley text uses his model, with the exception of Carter who specifies he is slightly altering it. So each time you cite one of those essays, you are referring to the Bromley model. When I say the Bromley model or text I am referring to all the essays therein, not just the ones authored by Bromley. When Wright states the definition you use (and mistakenly attribute to Johnson - just now saw your edit that recognizes that error,you're welcome) he is lifting it straight from bromley. Why is it not sufficient to call it the Bromley model? That's what it is.

When I asked you direct questions about your citations I am asking you to interpret them. You behaved as if that was a ridiculous request. Please answer them.

If you think that the oppositional coalition as described in the Bromley model and RFM serve the same purpose, then you need to defend that assertion. I have explained, several times, why they are not the same thing at all.

[beastie]

Addition to post: The terms "atrocity/captivity" tale seem to be the confusion. You seem to think no one but Bromley uses the concept. They do. Do you prefer "exmember testimony"? Pick another term. You also need to stop using "Bromley" as if it means something besides his name and his article. It is confusing. Every author adds something to the mix and you need to use their names. I will correct the attribution I messed up, thank you for pointing it out.

I didn't catch this addition until now.

I think it is confusing whenever you use the same terms that the Bromley model utilizes if you do not intend the exact same meaning he provided. He was careful to point out that he was using a very specific meaning with a narrow application (and the other authors all relied on that model, hence, I see no need to call it the Wright model, the Mauss model - all their comments were tailored around his model). I think you tend to broaden it past the point of retaining consistency with his original intent. (the brainwashing comments for example)

The brief definitions (particularly when they are obviously from the Bromley model, as Wright's is) do not provide enough information for me to figure out if you have altered the meanings or not. If you're altering the meaning in some way to fit your own model instead of his, I think you should use a different term altogether, I don't care what, as long as you're clear on what you mean. Ray commented on this on the other board and used "exmormon narrative" to refer to simply the stories exmormons tell about why they lost faith. Certainly any person speaking to any audience tends to tailor their remarks to that audience, so it's not that I object to the idea of a "narrative" existing, just that I object to the "apostate narrative" from the Bromley model because it includes so many details that fall apart in application to modern mormonism.

How about this? Were you intending to post something longer pulling these ideas together? If so, why don't you go ahead and do that and then I will question you about it, or if it's clear, respond.

BTW, I will try to cut the length of my posts whenever possible. The problem is that I'm very aware of the miscommunications that tend to occur and am trying to cut them off at the pass with my very explicit explanations.

[Chaos]

Ive cleaned up the thread. All the nonsense has been removed. Now that this is in the pundits folder the mods should be more hands off. Please act accordingly. This means everyone!

Chaos

[Nighthawke]

BTW, I will try to cut the length of my posts whenever possible. The problem is that I'm very aware of the miscommunications that tend to occur and am trying to cut them off at the pass with my very explicit explanations.

Beastie, I'm not very hopeful that further miscommunications will not occur. Clearly many have woefully misinterpreted various posters' comments here already--posters on all sides.

It is incredible that our ancestors used to write back and forth and seemed perfectly able to make themselves understood but that somehow when the medium is the printed word on a monitor constant miscommunication is the result. What is the difference between words on paper and words on a monitor?

I wish you and Juliann well in your attempt. It would make for an interesting pundit thread if successful.

[Calm]

beastie, I apologize if I've missed this from your posts. With company coming and going (and the flu!), I probably have missed many posts unintentionally. I am looking for some clarification of your position on this citation:

The apostate, it is revealed, follows a predictable pattern or formula for post-involvement explanations of adherence to the disvalued group. This formulaic explanation is described as the “captivity narrative, which emphasizes the alleged manipulation, entrapment, and capture of the idealistic but unwitting target of sinister “cult” practices.

Juliann has spoken of this behaviour as existing along a continuum if I read her correctly, I'm assuming from minimal items of the formula to extreme and intense. From what I've read of your posts here, I haven't seen whether you have a more narrowed range of behaviour in mind or not.

Do you see this variation between different specific expressions of the general formula as being acceptable--and if so, do you put limits on it in any way (as in what is the minimum requirement to be considered to meet the requirement of the label "captivity narrative")--and if not, why not?

PS:

The problem is that I'm very aware of the miscommunications that tend to occur and am trying to cut them off at the pass with my very explicit explanations

After having just spent the last several days dealing with multiple family members of all shapes and sizes, I can so relate, lol. I'm actually grateful to take a break on the easygoing and oh, so very understanding (comparitively speaking) board. I hope I don't annoy you too much asking for clarifications, but be assured, I'm trying to avoid those same miscommunications so I'm trying not to assume anything that isn't hit over the head obvious.

[juliann]

Each author in the Bromley text uses his model, with the exception of Carter who specifies he is slightly altering it. So each time you cite one of those essays, you are referring to the Bromley model.

For the benefit of everyone else, this is not so. For example, with Wright who you claim is only talking about "Bromley's model"...he isn't even using the same terminology. He is using leave taker. Bromley uses defector. Wright has 78 references...only two of them cite Bromley. Why in the world would independent scholars re-hash someone else's theories? They have their own and they are discussing them after a nod to Bromley's model. Wright says on pg 102, "I now return to the initial research question raised at the begining of the chapter: What separates caustic, public detractors from sympathetic, stoic, or indifferent ex-members of NRMs? He then refers to Mauss' exploration of the "identity constuction and maintenance dynamics of apostasy" and continues with his own theories of structural and processional factors.

I have explained this and explained this. You need to keep the discussion centered on "subversive" groups but I don't. Nor do other scholars. They have their own ideas.

You have the book. What is it about Mauss' allowance for apostates in modern Mormonism that you don't agree with? Surely you aren't going to claim he doesn't know what Bromley is saying. You continue to represent that as something I created. I did not. It is in the book and you have quoted it yourself. So what do you disagree with? Why is Mauss wrong in saying there are modern Mormon apostates? Remember, no one has ever said they are anything but a very, very small part of exmos.

[beastie]

Cal,

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

Juliann:

For the benefit of everyone else, this is not so. For example, with Wright who you claim is only talking about "Bromley's model"...he isn't even using the same terminology. He is using leave taker. Bromley uses defector.

Bromley uses the phrase "leavetaking" as well. He also used the word "deserter" for "defector". Is there any fundamental difference in the meaning of these in Bromley versus Wright? If so, what is it?

Bromley uses defector. Wright has 78 references...only two of them cite Bromley. Why in the world would independent scholars re-hash someone else's theories?

See what I mean about miscommunication? It amazes me that you interpreted my comments to mean that each author is "rehashing" Bromley's model. But of course, even trying to be more explicit would not have helped me head that one off at that pass, because it is one I would never have thought of.

No, I am not suggesting that each author simply rehashed Bromley's model. They each focused on some particular aspect of the phenomenon, but their comments all worked within Bromley's model. They framed their comments within the same typology, even if one used "leavetaker" and one used "defector".

What I am saying is that none of the authors offered a model that contradicted Bromley's framework. Their work complemented and correlated with Bromley. For example, the definition you like from Wright: is there some fundamental difference between that one and Bromley's?

You have the book. What is it about Mauss' allowance for apostates in modern Mormonism that you don't agree with? Surely you aren't going to claim he doesn't know what Bromley is saying. You continue to represent that as something I created. I did not. It is in the book and you have quoted it yourself. So what do you disagree with? Why is Mauss wrong in saying there are modern Mormon apostates? Remember, no one has ever said they are anything but a very, very small part of exmos.

You are not reading my posts carefully. Are they still too long? I have repeatedly stated that all three types of organizations can produce all three types of exiters. I even referred to the modern apostates given as examples, Decker and (according to Mauss, although Bromley lists them as Whistleblowers) the Tanners? Why do you now suddenly act as if I am claiming modern apostates don't exist?

BTW, how do you know what percentage apostates, under your understanding of the term, are a very, very small percentage of exmos?

[juliann]

If you're altering the meaning in some way to fit your own model instead of his, I think you should use a different term altogether, I don't care what, as long as you're clear on what you mean. Ray commented on this on the other board and used "exmormon narrative" to refer to simply the stories exmormons tell about why they lost faith. Certainly any person speaking to any audience tends to tailor their remarks to that audience, so it's not that I object to the idea of a "narrative" existing, just that I object to the "apostate narrative" from the Bromley model because it includes so many details that fall apart in application to modern mormonism.

The problem with this is that these terms are used by others. I honestly don't know how a dialogue can even be established if you are going to demand that each term that has obtained wider usage be tied to one author of your choosing. It isn't the narrative that you think falls apart. It is your demand that apostates be restricted to Bromley's subversive organizations so it automatically eliminates Mormons when all of these categories are fluid and hypothetical. The narrative itself is fairly standard. Exmormon narrative will do, however.

[beastie]

The problem with this is that these terms are used by others. I honestly don't know how a dialogue can even be established if you are going to demand that each term that has obtained wider usage be tied to one author of your choosing. It isn't the narrative that you think falls apart. It is your demand that apostates be restricted to Bromley's subversive organizations so it automatically eliminates Mormons when all of these categories are fluid and hypothetical. The narrative itself is fairly standard. Exmormon narrative will do, however.

When each reference you use in conjunction with your terminology originates from Bromley's model, the resultant confusion is inevitable. All I have asked is that since you have used so many references from this one text, which shares a certain framework, if you use terminology or structure straight from that text and are really altering it in some way, you let us know.

BTW, nighthawke, before you retire from the thread, I have one quick question for you -

You believe that anyone who is a outspoken, visible critic of any organization must necessarily be angry. So if one of those critics tells you that he/she has no anger but, say, only a desire to share information for others looking for that information, do you conclude he/she is lying, or out of touch with their own feelings?

[Ray Agostini]

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).

There is no question that some ex-Mormons are angry, very angry. But they do not seem to fit Bromley's definition in the excerpts I've read. Beastie has already been through this. I too feel concerned by the anger expressed by some ex-Mormons. For example, on RFM last week there was a thread solely devoted to demonising Dr. Peterson as a "barracuda" and a "despicable human being", and the whole thread was a complete demonisation of a man most, if any, of them have never even met. This is the sort of irrational anger that concerns me. But it still does not fit into what Bromley is discussing, which is the apostate narrative from NRMs which are in fact cults, and which the host society has good reason to fear. Mormonism is not a cult, therefore by default it is excluded from Bromley's definition as a "Subversive NRM". (With some qualifications that "subversive" could still apply in some countries outside of America.)

The broader question is one concerning legitimacy. Do some, most, all ex-Mormon narratives contain facts? That may be disputable, but these narratives are not "crafted" as in the Bromley definition. I suppose their similarity may be likened to LDS testimonies - "predictable". Yet no one (at least I wouldn't) would suggest that testimonies are "crafted". The similar terminology in testimonials does not mean that individuals have not arrived at their own convictions. They are expressing common experiences. To the definition of apostate, by the dictionary definition anyone who has forsaken their religion is apostate, but this is not Bromley's definition, for the purpose of the book.

Juliann said she would provide further sources and definitions. I look forward to this. I don't believe anger is at all productive, but among some ex-Mormons it is very real. My feeling is that those who demonstrate the most anger are not very productive in getting their message across, even if it results in some self-healing. Even some ex-Mormons tend to shy away from "angry people", but it is a fact that they are angry, and want to vent. I've also noticed that in many "exmos" this anger usually dissipates over a period of time, and perhaps RFM is therapeutic in this sense, and it does have a high turn over rate. Shall I call it "seasonal venting"? (For most anyway.) The notion of the "captivity tale" may be manifest in some exmo narratives, but while some exmos may indeed have felt "captive" to Mormonism, this "captivity" has not been forced, and again different to Bromley's definitions. I can understand ex-Mormons born into Mormonism feeling that they were captive, because they had no choice in being born into the church. Theirs was religious and social indoctrination which they later concluded was false. Some exmos on RFM wanted the church destroyed (I've seen the posts myself), but others didn't, and had a live and let live policy, which appears to have prevailed, despite the severe criticisms of the church. So there is some diversity of opinion among exmos, and I believe notwithstanding the anger, the more level-headed ones are just venting and don't seek to form "coalitions" to destroy the church. As long as this diversity continues, it may not be as bad as we imagine. But everything is subject to the future directions. I do feel, however, that even if coalitions are formed, they will have to convince the host society that Mormonism really is something akin to the Koresh phenomenon, and that I see as an outright impossibility.

Again, my qualification: I have not read the book, so I leave the debate mainly in the hands of those who have, beastie and Juliann.

[Nighthawke]

BTW, nighthawke, before you retire from the thread, I have one quick question for you -

You believe that anyone who is a outspoken, visible critic of any organization must necessarily be angry. So if one of those critics tells you that he/she has no anger but, say, only a desire to share information for others looking for that information, do you conclude he/she is lying, or out of touch with their own feelings?

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.

I believe that

- a defector

- who becomes an outspoken, visible critic, and

- a resource to an oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of a specific group

is not a happy camper. Yes. But it doesn't necessarily have to be anger. It could simply be hostility or a number of other negative terms. Pull out a thesaurus.

You ask if a person "only [has] a desire to share information for others looking for that information, do you conclude he/she is lying, or out of touch with their own feelings?"

No. I'm sure that person is very sincere in their desire.

However, keeping the above definition in mind, I have yet to meet a defector (apostate) who, in their desire to share information (outspoken, visible critic) with others, hasn't resorted to low-class tactics (oppositional movement) in "seeking to soil the identity of a specific religious group".

[beastie]

Cal,

Hopefully I wonâ??t ramble too much, as Ray has already concisely summarized my views. But I do want to answer your question about the continuum.

Of course, human beings, and the organizations they construct, always live on the continuum. That is a given. And organizations shift from one typology to another, as the LDS church has done, and sometimes the boundaries arenâ??t clear. So the reality is always going to be a bit more ambiguous in some ways than a model. But, as a model, Bromleyâ??s is plain common sense, as I see it. Itâ??s simple cause and effect. Three types of organizations tend to produce one of the three types of exiters. The reason for that is clear. It all has to do with the balance of power in society, in regards to the host society and the NRM. Hence, the word â??Politicsâ? in the title. NRMs have very little, and likely no, power in the host society, due to the fact that their goals and values are perceived to be in direct opposition to the goals and values of the host society - hence the anxiety within the host society. This might help make the distinction â?? when â??brainwashingâ? is talked about in regards to Mormonism, even in the muted â??social programmingâ? formula, it is being talked about by exmormons, and not in the host society. This is because Mormonism is no longer viewed as a Subversive organization in NA, and in some areas of the country, is even dominant. For heavenâ??s sake, a Mormon is a serious candidate for President. Compare this to the host societyâ??s reaction to the Unification church back in the seventies. The host society itself was anxious about the group, saw its children leaving normal society to go live in a communal setting, having very little contact with former family and friends, and selling flowers on the street so their leader could live in opulence (they imagined). They were anxious and scared. When this much tension exists between the host society and the NRM, of course disparate groups of people â?? not exmembers â?? are going to band together and agitate for someone (normally the government, until that becomes a dead end) â??to do somethingâ? This creates the â??oppositional coalitionâ?. They use apostates and their narratives to agitate the larger society to influence it to use its regulatory agencies to do something. They want atrocity stories â?? real stories of horror that will outrage the host society enough to overwhelm its desire to protect freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

So while atrocity tales, and brainwashing tales, may and do exist along a continuum in real life, the oppositional coalition only wants the most extreme along that continuum â?? otherwise they wonâ??t use it. This results in the creation of the â??apostate narrativeâ?.

Now 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.

(ps, you must have had a wild holiday if this is a break!!!

(pps thanks for clarifying, NH. My only response is that, IMO, believers tend to resort to low-class tactics as well... I think that means we're all human)

[Nighthawke]

(pps thanks for clarifying, NH. My only response is that, IMO, believers tend to resort to low-class tactics as well... I think that means we're all human)

I think it means you're choosing not to engage. S'okay, it's late.