Apostates (New thread)

[Nighthawke]

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.

Hmm, it is pretty clear here that we have a scholar (using the Bromley model) who is saying there can be Mormon apostates.

[Nighthawke]

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?

Oh absolutely. I am very much interested in the examples Anson Shupe provides to support his statement. I will paste what he wrote again to make it easy for you to find it. His examples should be right around there:

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.

Thank you.

[Ray Agostini]

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.

You may have a point there. The question for me is, should all criticism be muted? What is "legitimate criticism"? Were David Wright's criticisms legitimate? Why should he be considered "apostate" if he was following the facts as a Biblical scholar?

[Nighthawke]

You may have a point there. The question for me is, should all criticism be muted? What is "legitimate criticism"? Were David Wright's criticisms legitimate? Why should he be considered "apostate" if he was following the facts as a Biblical scholar?

Sorry, I'm not interested in heading off in another direction. I'm focused on Shupe's definition right now and am waiting for Beastie to provide the examples she said he wrote about.

[Ray Agostini]

Sorry, I'm not interested in heading off in another direction. I'm focused on Shupe's definition right now and am waiting for Beastie to provide the examples she said he wrote about.

So am I. And I think you'll find that the definitions do not fit Mormonism overall. I'll leave my points about Wright for another time and place. In fact, I think I will eventually venture into Larry's Book of Mormon thread. Looks like he needs some questioning.

[beastie]

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.

Well, I guess if the real argument isnâ??t going well, you can always choose to create a strawman to beat on instead. Hereâ??s how many time I stated that all three organizational types could produce all three types of exiters:

Dec 30 2006, 07:56 AM

As I stated before, it is possible for any of the three organizational types to produce an exiter from any of the three main types. But it occurs rarely, and tends to prove the rule due to the exceptional nature (according to Bromley).

Dec 30 2006, 09:44 AM

This is exactly why I came over here to address you directly. If readers rely on what YOU say I have said, they are being misled.

In my summaries on the Z board, I stated that it is possible for all three organizational types to create all three kinds of exiters. However, in general, the correlation is true.

Dec 30 2006, 09:15 PM

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?

I have never denied that mormon apostates can exist. Rather I am arguing that, under the Bromley model, certain criteria must be met, and for obvious reasons which I've already mentioned, it is much more difficult to meet those criteria when not dealing with a Subversive organization.

[beastie]

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.

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

Pretty good atrocity tale!

The requisite brainwashing charge....

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.

Juliann,

There is a reason that you had to return to charges from the early days of the church to find an "atrocity tale". That is because the Mormon church, in its early days, was a Subversive organization and atrocity tales were used against it.

I would like to remind readers that, under the Bromley model, Fawn Brodie is a whistleblower. From Mauss' essay:

Written in the genre of psychohistory, and resembling a historical novel as much as a biography, this work constituted an incisive debunking of Smithâ??s prophetic claims, and derivatively of the most fundamental truth claims of Mormonism. It was, in other words, a major whistleblowing enterprise from a well-placed insider: Brodie was from the prominent McKay family. (p 66)

Yet Brodie never made common cause with any anti-Mormon enterprises, which were no longer numerous or powerful in any case. Brodieâ??s whistleblowing was not over theological issues as such, which might have attracted her to the Protestant anti-Mormons (the basic premise of her book, indeed, seems atheistic); nor was her whistleblowing over legal issues like nineteenth-century polygamy and theocracy, or (as with Sonia Johnson later) over the transversing of church/state boundaries, which might have given her an incipient anti-Mormon audience of a more political kind. Brodieâ??s attack, rather, was more in the nature of an expose against the cultural and intellectual respectability which Mormons had tried so hard to achieve during the first half of the twentieth century. Implicitly, her books asks how any but a bunch of simple minded country bumpkins could be taken in by the frauds of Joseph Smith. (p 67)

Juliann,

I have asked many questions in my posts, and you have answered almost none of them. It is difficult to have a dialogue when you avoid answering my questions. You are presenting your case, although there is a lot of confusion over exactly what case you are making and it would be helpful for you to clearly state it - and I am challenging it. That normally means you'll respond to my direct questions. This is one I've asked before:

What differentiates a whistleblower from an apostate, in Bromley's model?

Or you may want to approach it through this specific example

Why is Fawn Brodie considered a whistleblower and yet the people who point to historical issues on RFM are apostates? (using your atrocity example)

I'll return later with specific examples of atrocity tales. However, I cannot rely solely on Shupe's essay (I couldn't quite figure out if NH was saying the examples had to come from his essay) because he doesn't share specific charges, only names of past and current pamphlets. Other authors in the text, however, provide specific examples and I will provide them. It will take a bit longer to put together, though, due to my need to type over the examples.

[Nighthawke]

I'll return later with specific examples of atrocity tales. However, I cannot rely solely on Shupe's essay (I couldn't quite figure out if NH was saying the examples had to come from his essay) because he doesn't share specific charges, only names of past and current pamphlets. Other authors in the text, however, provide specific examples and I will provide them. It will take a bit longer to put together, though, due to my need to type over the examples.

Those examples from other authors would only be relevant if Anson Shupe had included atrocity tales in his definition. He did not.

Do I understand you correctly, that Shupe provides nothing to support his statement when he wrote "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."? Does he provide footnotes perhaps? What are the names of these past and current pamphlets? Are these past and current pamphlets is examples?

[beastie]

Those examples from other authors would only be relevant if Anson Shupe had included atrocity tales in his definition. He did not.

Do I understand you correctly, that Shupe provides nothing to support his statement when he wrote "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."? Does he provide footnotes perhaps? What are the names of these past and current pamphlets? Are these past and current pamphlets is examples?

You seem to be under the impression that Shupe, and only Shupe, discussed the idea of the atrocity tale. Else why would you insist on only having evidence from him? Several other authors discussed actual case studies and charges. Shupe only offered the names of past publications without telling us what the specific charges were.

How do the names of the pamphlets help you to know what the specific charges were? And why are you limiting this request to Shupe's article alone?

I am willing to take the time to copy over all the names of past and current publications he presented, but I have no idea how this will help address your specific question: what kind of charges are included in atrocity tales?

[beastie]

Oh wait a minute, I think I follow you now. You are saying that if Shupe did not specifically mention atrocity tales as being part of the apostate narrative, they are not a necessary component?

Am I correct?

[T-Bone]

T-Bone is not an apostate by any definition.

I knew my story was not that exciting.

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.

Itâ??s not easy! I definitely would not have written these things 2 years ago. Even though itâ??s not the purpose of this board, I have had the Exmo culture held up like a mirror in front of my face here on occasion. Itâ??s never easy to see ourselves in the mirror, but it can be helpful. Thatâ??s definitely something positive I can say about this board.

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 only found 2 references to Suddenly Strangers on the RfM web site (they have a good search option). The book is published by Aventine Press, a small self-publishing house. Aventine Press has also published authors with titles such as "God Can Heal Anything!" and "Irons in the Fire," a Christian Inspirational book.

I havenâ??t read the excerpts, and I probably wonâ??t. Iâ??m going to have a busy week getting ready for a new semester.

This thread has been very informative.

T-Bone

[Nighthawke]

Those examples from other authors would only be relevant if Anson Shupe had included atrocity tales in his definition. He did not.

Do I understand you correctly, that Shupe provides nothing to support his statement when he wrote "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."? Does he provide footnotes perhaps? What are the names of these past and current pamphlets? Are these past and current pamphlets is examples?

You seem to be under the impression that Shupe, and only Shupe, discussed the idea of the atrocity tale. Else why would you insist on only having evidence from him? Several other authors discussed actual case studies and charges. Shupe only offered the names of past publications without telling us what the specific charges were.

How do the names of the pamphlets help you to know what the specific charges were? And why are you limiting this request to Shupe's article alone?

I am willing to take the time to copy over all the names of past and current publications he presented, but I have no idea how this will help address your specific question: what kind of charges are included in atrocity tales?

Oh wait a minute, I think I follow you now. You are saying that if Shupe did not specifically mention atrocity tales as being part of the apostate narrative, they are not a necessary component?

Am I correct?

Beastie,

1. You wrote, "I have no idea how this will help address your specific question: what kind of charges are included in atrocity tales?"

You are attributing to me a question I never asked.

2. Shupe's definition and any additional text he has written to support that definition is pretty much all I'm focused on. Small bites as the saying goes (I had hoped that narrowing my focus would make for less chance of miscommunication. Silly moi.).

3. My impression is that Shupe does not even mention atrocity tales because I didn't spot anything about an atrocity tale in his definition. Does Shupe use the term "atrocity tale" at all in his essay? If yes please provide a quotation. If no, then please stop including it in your replies to me because, as I mentioned earlier, my focus is on: Shupe's definition and any supporting text he provides.

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.

4. If all Shupe provides to support his definition are the names of pamphlets, then yes, please provide the names of the pamphlets.

Thank you.

[Ray Agostini]

2. Shupe's definition and any additional text he has written to support that definition is pretty much all I'm focused on. Small bites as the saying goes (I had hoped that narrowing my focus would make for less chance of miscommunication. Silly moi.).

3. My impression is that Shupe does not even mention atrocity tales because I didn't spot anything about an atrocity tale in his definition. Does Shupe use the term "atrocity tale" at all in his essay? If yes please provide a quotation. If no, then please stop including it in your replies to me because, as I mentioned earlier, my focus is on: Shupe's definition and any supporting text he provides.

4. If all Shupe provides to support his definition are the names of pamphlets, then yes, please provide the names of the pamphlets.

This is not from the book, but it's an example of what Shupe is talking about, Waco:

There were also, of course, a few sensational personal narratives offered by disillusioned and hostile former members who had abandoned the group before the crisis events occurred (e.g., Breault and King 1993). However, these narratives display all th e earmarks of being colored by apostate and commercial motivations (Shupe and Bromley 1981).

Few of the principle actors survived the final conflagration. While the trials of surviving Branch Davidians did offer some vindication,l their testimony is suspect as literal history, given the pressures to slant memories coming from both prosecutors and defense attorneys. In addition, survivors experienced a wide variety of counseling and interviews that likely contributed to their understanding of what they had experienced. All in all, the methodological problems of interpreting the testimonies of the survivors are considerable (Wright and Ebaugh 1993).

Some independent evidence of the Branch Davidian narrative survives.2 There are films of Koresh's millennial preaching and knowledge of his claims and his remarks to both the media and the FBI negotiators. From Koresh's perspective, he was intensely e ngaged in interpreting critical parts of the book of Revelation which would conclude what he believed to be a divine theological mission. This mission is the heart of the Branch Davidian narrative. Koresh believed that he could decipher the allegorical me aning of the seven seals mentioned in Revelation and that he and his loyal followers would be part of the second coming of Christ. This claim was Koresh's source of authority over his followers (see Tabor, this volume).

Ironically, the raid and subsequent siege functioned to strengthen Koresh's vision of his prophetic role in history as well as his hold over his followers. These events confirmed Koresh's prophecies based on his interpretation of the book of Revelatio n. He had preached that in the last days there would initially be a killing spree aimed at the faithful. Koresh said that God had commanded him to wait under siege until others were killed. Phillip Arnold, a theologian whose advice to the FBI went unheede d, said in hindsight that "David felt that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation were being fulfilled this very week, this very day, in Waco, Texas" (Prime Time 1994).

This perspective was, of course, significantly at odds with FBI tacticians who considered Koresh's theology to be a hoax and the man himself a charlatan. Had federal agents taken this theological perspective seriously, they perhaps would have understo od how their tactics inadvertently confirmed the legitimacy of Koresh's prophecies and, in turn, his hold over his followers. From the initial presence of so many BATF agents, to the prolonged siege, to the media hoopla, Koresh's world-transforming prophe tic message must have been reinforced not only in the mind of Koresh, but in those of his followers as well.

This was a narrative that was incomprehensible to the federal agents who were responsible for the initial raid, and those later responsible for operations during the siege. Their dismissal of it as ravings unimportant to the "hostage/barricade" issue accounts for much of Koresh's alleged inconsistencies and erratic behaviors during negotiations. The narrative was also largely incomprehensible to the media agents assigned to cover the story.

Consultants to the investigations of the Justice and Treasury departments confirmed the presence of agents in the behavioral science division of the FBI who had at least rudimentary understanding of the Davidians' theological perspective, but the advi ce of these agents was ignored (Ammerman 1993; Stone 1993). Religion writers, including several working for Texas newspapers, had appropriate training and experience to understand the Davidians' theological perspective. Again, ironically, they were not as signed to cover the story.

The Branch Davidians' narrative, thus, remains substantially a private narrative. To the extent that it received any attention, it was shrouded by skepticism. At best, the theological narrative was viewed as evidence that the Davidians were either der anged or hopelessly brainwashed by their leader.

"Cops, News Copy, and Public Opinion

Legitamcy and the Social Construction of Evil in Waco"

Anson Shupe

Jeffrey K. Hadden

For full text: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu...dians/news.html

[juliann]

I have never denied that mormon apostates can exist. Rather I am arguing that, under the Bromley model, certain criteria must be met, and for obvious reasons which I've already mentioned, it is much more difficult to meet those criteria when not dealing with a Subversive organization.

OK, so now you are backing up to agree that Mormon apostates are allowed under your Bromley model. It is just "much more difficult".

[juliann]

What differentiates a whistleblower from an apostate, in Bromley's model?

You have already put up the definition. Put it up again if you need it. Stop asking me to reword what is very plainly written and dealt with. You are trying to create diversionary arguments where they don't exist. (And you have yet to do anything but rely on "Bromley" as if there was not another expert in sight. )

Or you may want to approach it through this specific example

Why is Fawn Brodie considered a whistleblower and yet the people who point to historical issues on RFM are apostates? (using your atrocity example)

Question begging. To compare a scholar with "people on RFM" is outrageous. The ploy of turning everyone on RFM into an apostate merely because they post there to divert attention from who does fit the definition of apostate is not going to work. Stop it. I'm not going to play word games.

Mauss allows for "mixed types" (see pg 70) and a continuum. He also allows for movement. Mauss interprets Bromley's apostate as follows:

Exiters are true apostates only to the extent that they have access to oppositional organizations which will sponsor their careers and validate the retrospective biographical accounts of their outrageous experiences during their sojourns in the ertswhile religion. (69).

I think any reasonable person would agree that an apostate without a voice is of no consequence. Thus, they need organizations to give them a platform and the organizations need them to maintain their niche.

Any dedicated Mormon apostate or whistle-blower can find places to turn for aid and comfort. Yet, even so, there does not seem to be in the proliferation of apostates that occurred in nineteenth-century Mormonism, at least not if we are referring to those who achieve careers as exponents of anti-Mormon organizations.

Armand L. 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), 63.

[juliann]

Let's cut to the chase. Beastie has now acknowledged that even Bromley allows for Mormon apostates. We agree on that. I acknowledge that apostates are not common. We agree on that.

What Beastie keeps circling around is the apostate narrative and...word meanings. Also, Beastie is not going to acknowledge internet organizations since that would mean admitting that there are oppositional organizations that are available to just about everyone now on an avocational basis.

So Beastie is arguing that atrocity/captivity tales are a necessary component of apostate narratives and that "atrocity" can only mean literal murder, mayhem and such and that captivity must include literal physcial restraint of some sort.

Beastie is arguing that internet organizations directed to ex-Mormons do nothing but provide "support". They do not engage in any activities that countercult/anticult organizations do.

So Beastie needs to

1. Produce evidence to show that atrocity/captivity tales are always real and factual and that if they are not real and factual they are not atrocity/capitivty tales so that she can support her conclusion that there can be no Mormon apostates without such events.

2. Produce evidence that Bromley is the only expert that can be used.

3. Produce evidence that a exmo conference/media contact/publishing/website etc. is demonstrably different than the same activity from other anti-cult groups.

[juliann]

One more question, Beastie. Since you acknowledge that Mormon apostates can exist do you acknowledge that there are any? Who would you consider to be a (currently) active apostate?

[Nighthawke]

This is not from the book, but it's an example of what Shupe is talking about, Waco:

There were also, of course, a few sensational personal narratives offered by disillusioned and hostile former members who had abandoned the group before the crisis events occurred (e.g., Breault and King 1993). However, these narratives display all the earmarks of being colored by apostate and commercial motivations (Shupe and Bromley 1981).

Few of the principle actors survived the final conflagration. While the trials of surviving Branch Davidians did offer some vindication,l their testimony is suspect as literal history, given the pressures to slant memories coming from both prosecutors and defense attorneys. In addition, survivors experienced a wide variety of counseling and interviews that likely contributed to their understanding of what they had experienced. All in all, the methodological problems of interpreting the testimonies of the survivors are considerable (Wright and Ebaugh 1993).

Some independent evidence of the Branch Davidian narrative survives.2 There are films of Koresh's millennial preaching and knowledge of his claims and his remarks to both the media and the FBI negotiators. From Koresh's perspective, he was intensely e ngaged in interpreting critical parts of the book of Revelation which would conclude what he believed to be a divine theological mission. This mission is the heart of the Branch Davidian narrative. Koresh believed that he could decipher the allegorical me aning of the seven seals mentioned in Revelation and that he and his loyal followers would be part of the second coming of Christ. This claim was Koresh's source of authority over his followers (see Tabor, this volume).

Ironically, the raid and subsequent siege functioned to strengthen Koresh's vision of his prophetic role in history as well as his hold over his followers. These events confirmed Koresh's prophecies based on his interpretation of the book of Revelatio n. He had preached that in the last days there would initially be a killing spree aimed at the faithful. Koresh said that God had commanded him to wait under siege until others were killed. Phillip Arnold, a theologian whose advice to the FBI went unheede d, said in hindsight that "David felt that the prophecies of the Book of Revelation were being fulfilled this very week, this very day, in Waco, Texas" (Prime Time 1994).

This perspective was, of course, significantly at odds with FBI tacticians who considered Koresh's theology to be a hoax and the man himself a charlatan. Had federal agents taken this theological perspective seriously, they perhaps would have understo od how their tactics inadvertently confirmed the legitimacy of Koresh's prophecies and, in turn, his hold over his followers. From the initial presence of so many BATF agents, to the prolonged siege, to the media hoopla, Koresh's world-transforming prophe tic message must have been reinforced not only in the mind of Koresh, but in those of his followers as well.

This was a narrative that was incomprehensible to the federal agents who were responsible for the initial raid, and those later responsible for operations during the siege. Their dismissal of it as ravings unimportant to the "hostage/barricade" issue accounts for much of Koresh's alleged inconsistencies and erratic behaviors during negotiations. The narrative was also largely incomprehensible to the media agents assigned to cover the story.

Consultants to the investigations of the Justice and Treasury departments confirmed the presence of agents in the behavioral science division of the FBI who had at least rudimentary understanding of the Davidians' theological perspective, but the advi ce of these agents was ignored (Ammerman 1993; Stone 1993). Religion writers, including several working for Texas newspapers, had appropriate training and experience to understand the Davidians' theological perspective. Again, ironically, they were not as signed to cover the story.

The Branch Davidians' narrative, thus, remains substantially a private narrative. To the extent that it received any attention, it was shrouded by skepticism. At best, the theological narrative was viewed as evidence that the Davidians were either der anged or hopelessly brainwashed by their leader.

"Cops, News Copy, and Public Opinion

Legitamcy and the Social Construction of Evil in Waco"

Anson Shupe

Jeffrey K. Hadden

For full text: http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu...dians/news.html

Ray,

Only the first paragraph bears on the discussion at hand. Please let's not muddle the thread by posting material unrelated to the topic at hand.

Waco eh? Are you suggesting here that the NRM must needs be subversive? The atrocity tale registering a 10 perhaps? However I don't see Shupe et al. positioning the NRM or the atrocity tale on any scale:

The apostate plays a significant role in discrediting a deviant group and in authorizing social control measures. He or she can reveal the group's inner workings and secrets in such a way as to confirm suspicions and allegations about it, condemn the group with a knowledge and certainty no outsider could muster, and reaffirm the values of conventional society by voluntarily and publicly confessing the "error" of his or her ways.

Apostates contribute substantially to the larger-than-life quality of atrocity tales. Having flouted the dominant value system, apostates can hardly expect to regain acceptance in conventional society after merely losing interest in the deviant group. It is incumbent upon them to demonstrate convincingly that their reaffirmation of the dominant values is genuine, that they share with others negative sentiments toward the group, and that their former commitment was false witnessing.

- David G. Bromley, Anson D. Shupe, Jr. and J. C. Ventimiglia, "Atrocity Tales, the Unification Church, and the Social Construction of Evil" in the Journal of Communication, Vol. 29:3 (Summer 1979), p. 50.

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.

[juliann]

Let's move on to Cowan. I am particularly interested in him because he deals specifically with the internet explosion and with individual groups. He appears to be using apostate as a given when one is involved with countercults.

In both secular anticult and Christian countercult domains, one common element in apostate testimony is the sense of social isolation members experience when they belonged to the group in question. Postexit, a concomitant sense of isolation arises from the perceived uniqueness of their NRM experience: no one understands what theyâ??ve gone through. Thus, the capacity to socialize with former members, to learn that oneâ??s experience is not unique, to gather support for oneâ??s own perception of events, and to develop meaning thereby are extremely important components of the postexit construction of reality. This draws, of courses, on key elements of social construction and symbolic interaction theoriesâ??that is, meaning is never inherent in a situation, it is always constructed in the dialectic of ongoing conversations. Over the Internet, former members from around the world can now converse with each other, validating similar experiences, expanding the chorus of significant voices, and communicating through their own Web sites, on discussion boards, and by public and private email.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 124.

He uses RFM as an example of the need for community along with Christian Research Ministry, Sword of the Lord Ministries, etc.

â??Recovery from Mormonismâ? has more than 130 apostate testimonies on site, as well as hyperlinks to email newsgroups and alt.-discussion boards designed specifically for ex-Mormons. The primary foci of the â??Ex-Mormonâ? discussion group are to â??discuss experiences with the Mormon church,â? and to â??overcome the effects of having been a Mormon.â?

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 125.

[beastie]

I just have to comment on this before going any further (I am working on this in bits and pieces today due to real life demands)

Let's cut to the chase. Beastie has now acknowledged that even Bromley allows for Mormon apostates. We agree on that. I acknowledge that apostates are not common. We agree on that.

What actually has occurred is not that beastie "has now acknowledged" that mormon apostates can exist today.

What has occurred is that Juliann, after repeated tries by beastie, "has now acknowledged" that beastie is not claiming that modern mormon apostates cannot exist. The next step should be Juliann acknowledging that beastie has never made such a claim.

In the interests of fair play, I would like Juliann to concede this point. I am tired of being misrepresented. I came back to this board due to the misrepresentation that was taking place, and now it seems to continue, even with my protests.

[juliann]

Just as an example of how different experts use terms, here is an explanation of atrocity tale from Cowan:

Next, as a warning speech, ex-member testimony serves as an anecdotal atrocity: this is how horrible things happened to me; donâ??t let them happen to you. Rather than confession, here stress is laid on the negative aspects of recruitment by and experience within the NRM in a manner designed to alert site visitors to the alleged dangers of the group in question.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 123.

This is why I'm not interested in arguing about one expert. We can agree, disagree or whatever on any one expert but no one of them has a patent on the vocabulary or the ideas.

[beastie]

Since it will probably be later today until I get time to copy the sections of shupe that NH wants (and he does mention the atrocity tale and "horrors"), I'm going to offer my summary of his essay to get a better idea of what he's addressing.

I edited out the summary for 9 which I accidentally included

Chapter 10

The Role of Apostates in the North American Anticult Movement

Anson Shupe

Shupe begins by, again, defining â??apostateâ?:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The apostate role is understood to be one in which a person exits, 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 an important resource for any countercult, anti-cult, or oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups. (p 207)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(quick edit in: this was followed by this paragraph, Shupe quoting Shupe:

"While opponents may suspect the worst of a group, they can only related what they at best know secondhand. Apostates, however, can claim to have seen firsthand and often personally participated in various horrors. Their testimony is that of teh insider and as such provides an apparently irrefutable confirmation for the propaganda [about] a group's opponents. "

Once again, using the term in the specific manner utilized in this text, it is not enough to simply be a vocal critic of the former religion; one must also be a resource for other oppositional groups. The reason this is also an important component is due to the fact that it is the oppositional coalition that provides the pressure to make sure the apostate narrative conforms to certain parameters, in order to provide ammunition for the groupâ??s goal of some form of social control over the group.

Shupe states it even more clearly here:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 2 of this volume approaches the entire cult-anti-cult struggle as one in which contested organizations (a category into which many new religious movements fit) possess relatively little power vis-

[beastie]

One more question, Beastie. Since you acknowledge that Mormon apostates can exist do you acknowledge that there are any? Who would you consider to be a (currently) active apostate?

It is posts such as this that makes me wonder if you even read my responses to you. I long ago mentioned that Ed Decker is an example of a modern apostate, and that Mauss believes the Tanners are, although Bromley classifies them as whistleblowers.

[juliann]

I just have to comment on this before going any further (I am working on this in bits and pieces today due to real life demands)

What actually has occurred is not that beastie "has now acknowledged" that mormon apostates can exist today.

What has occurred is that Juliann, after repeated tries by beastie, "has now acknowledged" that beastie is not claiming that modern mormon apostates cannot exist. The next step should be Juliann acknowledging that beastie has never made such a claim.

In the interests of fair play, I would like Juliann to concede this point. I am tired of being misrepresented. I came back to this board due to the misrepresentation that was taking place, and now it seems to continue, even with my protests.

Beastie, the question was very clear. Do you acknowledge that apostates exist now. Today. You are playing games again. I am talking specifically about the internet/RFM with names like Benson and McCue and you are going to try to say that you are acknowledging the two names Mauss used from decades ago. If you will name internet apostates that have been backed by RFM or any other group that are currently active then I will gladly concede the point. We will then be able to get to the point.

[juliann]

It is posts such as this that makes me wonder if you even read my responses to you. I long ago mentioned that Ed Decker is an example of a modern apostate, and that Mauss believes the Tanners are, although Bromley classifies them as whistleblowers.

Okkaay....didnt' see this before I posted. So you do not acknowledge that there are RFM backed apostates? This is what kills threads, Beastie. Dodgeball.