Apostates (New thread)

[juliann]

Let me repeat. This started over the objection that I used RFM. It is really disingenous to ignore that to fall back on dinosaurs like Decker (who isn't even taken seriously by a lot of antis) and people who aren't even alive anymore.

If you don't acknowledge that new apostates are being produced then a statement that they can be but aren't is no acknowledgement at all.

[Nighthawke]

I'm going to offer my summary of his essay to get a better idea of what he's addressing. . . .

Why?

[Ray Agostini]

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.

NH,

This seems rather pecky. Why did you repost the whole quote? Maybe you should have only reposted the part you felt relevant. By the way, I'm not as yet used to the different functions in the Pundit forum, which is different to the main board.

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

No, I'm not suggesting that. You asked for an example of an atrocity tale, and I gave one. I replied to your request.

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.

All through the literature I've read so far, posted by beastie and on the net, says that atrocity tales, of whatever variety, may or may not be true. Are you suggesting that every ex-Mormon narrative on RFM fits the above definition? How many have you read? Isn't this categorising everyone on RFM? When I was on RFM in 2002 I posted my "exit story", and it was not an atrocity tale. Remember that like beastie I'm speaking from direct exposure to RFM. I have been told by many exmos that they do not like the closedmindedness of RFM, and many feel it's a clique. I left there for those reasons. I went on RFM 15 years after I left the Church. I was venting because of the way two True Believing Mormons treated me on another LDS board. The names they called me cannot all be posted here, but one of them was "Son of Perdition", and this went on ad nauseam. This is what fosters anger at the Church. Do you understand this? I realised later, after cooling off, that it was not right to condemn a whole church because of the treatment of two people. But it was vicious! The irony is that when I tried to defend my "leftover" spiritual belief in the Book of Mormon, I got the same treatment on RFM. This is a human condition, and this is also what I believe Mauss said.

No doubt there are apostates on RFM who want to involve the "host culture", and exaggerate their tales, and bring down the Church (which is an impossibility), but they cannot all be categorised as apostates with those motives. I have done this catergorising in the past, but I'm not afraid to alter my views after interaction with many others who do post on RFM, and realising that they are not evil apostates, just like I altered my view of the Church and became more friendly after realising that two, or even several Mormons, do not qualify what a church stands for. This back and forth cut-throat debate is about categorising people.

If you want to catergorise the whole of RFM, then maybe you should do like a sociologist and read every exit story posted there before making a thorough judgement. These are not black and white issues. Now please, don't tell me this post is not relevant, because it goes to the heart of this problem.

[juliann]

Ray, why do we have to keep repeating that not everything on RFM is apostate? I am truly puzzled. I know that I have said that several times just in this thread. We are talking about apostates. Not leave takers. Everyone has a story....that doesn't automatically make them an "apostate" by any sociologist's definition that I have seen.

To me, what is apostate are the stories like the example I gave above...a special link given on RFM....accusations of racism and sexism enforced by fear and restricted knowledge. I think another example is Tom Murphy's accusations that the church was "stealing NA's heritage". That is a pretty serious thing in today's culture...and that is the point. Today's atrocity is going to be a reflection of today's culture. Being thrown off a temple spire just isn't going to cut it anymore. We need a little more subtlety....treading on people's rights is pretty serious today.

I am currently trying to get Beastie to take a stand on atrocity/captivity stories. She hasn't been clear whether she thinks the awful events have to be literal or they just have to be told....I've seen her go both ways depending on who she is quoting.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, why do we have to keep repeating that not everything on RFM is apostate? I am truly puzzled. I know that I have said that several times just in this thread. We are talking about apostates. Not leave takers. Everyone has a story....that doesn't automatically make them an "apostate" by any sociologist's definition that I have seen.

Juliann, perhaps we're all getting a few "mixed messages" here. For example, a while ago you posted this quoting Cowan:

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

QUOTE

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.

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.

[beastie]

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

You continue to misrepresent me. I have always stated that all three types of organizations can create any of the three exiters. Of course it is more difficult.

Please stop misrepresenting me. I am not "backing up". I have not changed my position on this matter. You simply are not paying attention to my posts.

[beastie]

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.

RFM is not an oppostional coalition. This is the entire problem with your model. Perhaps apostates, under the Bromley model, post at RFM, but RFM is not an oppositional coalition that demands an apostate narrative that fits certain criteria.

I do not know any internet apostates anywhere that fit this definition. I imagine they would be associated with the theological regulatory ACM. If you believe that Tal Bachman and Bob McCue fit the definition, you need to defend it. Show us their atrocity tales, show us their captivity tales.

[beastie]

As per Nighthawke's requestion, from Shupe's article:

Christian tradition defines apostasy as a loss or willful abandonment of faith. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, apostasy is a â??renunciation of oneâ??s religionâ?. Current sociological usage of the term apostasy is somewhat different. Beginning with Coser and two decades later Bromley, Shupe, and Ventimiglia, the term took on a more specific social movement orientation. In the altter source the authors analyzed a sample of several hundred newspaper articles from the mid- to late 1970s containing unflattering-to-hostile descriptions of the Reverend Sun Myung Moonâ??s Unification Church and its activities in the United States. Of particular interest were the testimonies of angry and disillusioned ex-believers from that group, many of whom had involuntarily left (eg, been abducted, coercively confined, and â??deprogrammedâ?) and who wished to speak publicly about what they perceived as abusive experiences and allegedly horrendous living conditions while Unification members. Many such persons coming before the media were also ballyhooed by agents active in the loosely organized countermovement now commonly referred to as the anti-cult movement, or ACM, and later Shupe and Bromley termed such ex-members-turned-activists opponents â??apostatesâ? and their descriptions of their NRM experiences â??atrocity storiesâ?(similar to deliberately crafted wartime propaganda accounts of enemy depredations by combatant governments to shock, arouse and mobilize citizens against that enemy.)

At about that same time, a number of other scholars in sociological and history were independently discovering a nineteenth century religious hate literature that described persons claiming, entrepreneurially or authentically, to have been members of such religious groups as Mormonism and various Roman Catholic orders. These actors seemed to be performing a similar apostate role, condemning groups to which they claimed to have once belonged but from which they later escaped and condemned. In 1812, for example, Anthony Gavin published A Master Key to Popery, Giving a Full Account of All the Customs of the Priests and Friars and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Popish Religion. . IN 1821, Jeremiah Odd published a book entitled Popery Unveiled. Samuel Smith, a self-proclaimed ex-Catholic priest, published, in 1834, The Downfall of Babylon, or the Triumph of Truth over Popery. Pseudo-ex-nun Rebecca Reed published one of the all-time best-selling potboilers, [the ghostwritten] Six Months in a Convent in 1835, and the next year another pseudo-ex-nun, Maria Monk, published her Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Convent of Montreal, or the Secrets of Black Nunnery Revealed. Chapter 6 in this volume analyzes key texts in this literary genre.

Meanwhile, a parallel anti-Mormon literature was discovered: Female Life Among the Mormons: A Narrative of Many Yearsâ?? Personal Experience, By the Wife of a Mormon Elder Recently Returned from Utah (1857), Fifteen Years Among the Mormons: Being the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie Smith (1857), and Wife No. 19: or the Story of a Life in Bondage, Being a Complete Expose of Mormonism represent only a few examples. (p 210)

Shupe quoting Shupe:

In sociological terms apostasy is a particular status, and one who assumes it â?? or can make others believe that one is an actual apostate â?? gains a great deal of credibility. The appearance of persons claiming to have been members of some unpopular group and now willing to expose it is well nigh inevitable in such conflicts over social movements, for just as the movement or group in questionâ?¦ tries to refute opponentâ??s allegations, so the latter â??antiâ??sâ? feel under greater pressure to come up with the better â??proofâ? for their claims. Who can provide better proof of misdeeds than a confessed former perpetrator of them?

It is worth noting that at least in the original formulations of the term â??apostatesâ? and â??atrocity talesâ? the sincerity of the apostates was not questioned. According to bromley, Shupe, and Ventimiglia, apostatesâ?? tales of abuse were simply regarded as accounts (in the social psychological meaning of that term), unexamined corroboratively for their â??realâ? content. The main issue as not such storiesâ?? veracity or accuracy but rather the functions they served for countermovements to render other social movements problematic in the public arena. (p 211)

I'm next going to offer the examples of atrocity tales from the text. Even if NH is not interested in this, Ray appears to be and I think it will help readers, as well. However, I have not typed any of these citations yet so it may take a bit before I have them ready.

[beastie]

Examples of Atrocity Tales

From Wrightâ??s essay Factors that Shape the Apostate Role

The captivity narrative provides a rationale for the warfare and [/]hostage motifs, central themes in ACM ideology. Since converts are defined as psychological captives or â??hostagesâ?? to cultist mind-control techniques, circumstances call for a â??rescueâ? strategy. The analogy of Chinese communist brainwashing practices employed against POWs during the Korean War, and later by Russian communists during the Cold War years is frequently evoked in anti-cult literature. The hostage-rescue motif constructs the conflict between new religions and their detractors as â??warfareâ?, invoking the â??discourse of warâ? and attendant militarization themes designed to establish an image of an â??enemyâ? with evil intent. Military symbols, speech, and metaphor are employed to describe the â??battleâ? against cults, wherein cult members are seen as â??enemiesâ? of freedom, or the state, and cultists are inflicted by the psychological horrors of war atrocities and POW camp experiences â?? battle fatigue, combat trauma, psychological manipulation, isolation, sleep deprivation, and post-traumatic stress syndrome. Exit therapist Wendy Ford, for example, offers the following analogy to parents of ex-cultists: â??It can help to realize that like a veteran returning home from a war, he has been somewhere you have not been, exposed to the horrors of a trauma you can only imagine. For all your years of experience, you have not been in his war.â?

One frequently finds allegations of stockpiled weapons, boot camp conditions of living, military-like regimens of discipline, and other â??totalisticâ? organizational features. Consistent with the framing of the conflict in this manner, NRM leaders may be cast as â??terroristsâ?, and cult residences become â??compoundsâ? or â??bunkersâ?. Agents of the countermovement coalition are cast as heroic warriors or soldiers, endangering their own lives to save the embattled hostages. Rescue efforts that require forcible intervention on the part of deprogrammers are conducted in covert-style operations, involving surveillance and infiltration of enemy camps, and typically entail abduction, kidnapping, and harrowing escapes from behind enemy lines in order to emancipate the brainwashed hostages. (p 99)

From John R. Hall and Philip Schuyerâ??s essay â??Apostasy, Apocalypse, and Religious Violence: An Exploratory Comparison of Peoples Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Solar Templeâ?

In regards to Jonestown: of course, the group was accused of the basic mind-control, humiliation, etc, but in addition Jones began talk of â??revolutionary suicideâ? and the Concerned Relatives â??mounted a publicity campaign that portrayed Peoples Temple as â??employing physical intimidation and psychological coercion as part of a mind-programming campaignâ? in violation of their human rights specified in the United Nations declaration of 1948. By small steps, their campaign became refocused into an effort to â??dismantleâ? what they portrayed as a â??concentration camp.â? (p 149)

In the same essay, the authors discuss the Branch Davidians â?? they were also accused of considering â??mass suicideâ?, stockpiling of weapons, and inappropriate sexual behavior with young females (I remember Jim Jones being accused of this too) The Solarâ??s Temple was discussed, as well, and they were also accused of buying weapons with the intent to assassinate public officials, and illegal arms trafficking.

From James Richardsonâ??s essay â??Apostates, Whistleblowers, Law, and Social Controlâ?

Richardson discussed the case of The Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT).CUT was also accused of stockpiling weapons and planning mass suicide(p 177). In addition, The Unification Church was briefly discussed- the main atrocity tales told about it involved brainwashing allegations. (179) â??The Familyâ? (formerly Church of God) was accused of systemic child abuse, including sexual abuse (p 182).

Susan Palmerâ??s entire essay, â??Apostates and their Role in the Construction of Grievance Claims Against the Northeast Kingdom/Messianic Communitiesâ? described the atrocity tales of rampant child abuse in the form of extreme discipline that was theologically based. (p 191)

Lewis Carter analyzes the case of the Rajneeshpuram in his essay â??Carriers of Tales: On Assessing Credibility of Apostate and Other Outsider Accounts of Religious Practicesâ?. This group was accused of trying to manipulate local elections by busing in mass numbers of homeless people, as well as putting salmonella in local salad bars.

Next I intend to discuss what constitutes an oppositional coalition to analyze RFM as a possible candidate.

[beastie]

Chapter 5

Exploring Factors that Shape the Apostate Role

Stuart A. Wright

The apostate on the other hand, is defined as a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a dispute, and embraces a posture of confrontation through public claimsmaking activities. In effect, the apostate carves out a moral or professional career as an ex, capitalizing on opportunities of status enhancement afforded the individual through organizational affiliation with the oppositional group(s). The post-involvement identity of the apostate is negotiated within the interactional context of a countermovement coalition and subsequently packaged for public consumption as the â??wrongedâ? person. The new identity serves to launch the new career of the moral entrepreneur who becomes engaged in a mission to expose the evils of the suspect group â?? one which features the characteristics of a â??Subversiveâ? organization. The newly constructed role places the apostate in a position that is diametrically opposed to oneâ??s former beliefs and commitment. The apostate seeks to polarize the former and present identities, accentuating a personal transformation akin to conversion. Indeed, the intensity and zeal in which the apostate embraces the new moral vision, seeks atonement through public confession and testimony, and makes salvific claims of redemption, at least suggests that the ex-memberâ??s new affiliation may be analyzed as a type of quasi-religious conversion in its own right. Herein, exiting a deviant career to become an apostate is given meaning to the extent that social and moral distance between the two worlds can be maximized. It is typically characterized as a darkness-to-light personal transformation.

With regard to new religions in particular, apostates frequently develop an occupational or professional role within the anti-cult movement (ACM) as a deprogrammer, counselor, exit therapist, conference speaker, administrative officer, or some combination of the above, insuring a sort of institutionalization of apostasy. According to exit counselor Carol Giambalvo, â??Exit counselors are usually former cult members themselves.â? The industry of anti-cultism, spearheaded by key interest groups or movement organizations (Mos) such as Cult Awareness Network (CAN) and The American Family Foundation (AFF) attests to this institutionalization. ( p 97)

Note in particular this statement:

â??The apostate on the other hand, is defined as a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a disputeâ?

I already asked Juliann to respond to this quote previously. What does it mean to â??broaden a disputeâ?? In terms of the oppositional coalitions described in this text, it means to involve outsiders and hopefully some sort of external regulatory unit.

RFM does not seek to involve the host society in general. It is largely aimed at people who have already lost faith in Mormonism or who have questions about that faith. RFM is not attempting to invoke any sort of regulatory unit, be it through the government, or a theological regulatory unit (such as ACM).

There are no professional roles to be developed in conjunction with RFM. The â??counselingâ? offered is simply email another exmormon directly, instead of through the discussion board.

More from Wright:

Apostasy is also learned as a function of role-taking. It is important to understand that the apostate role has been carefully crafted as a part of the social structure of the ACM and it exists independently of any individualâ??s incumbency. In effect, ownership of the role belongs to the organization. Consequently, the potential apostate must perform the appropriate role or â??social scriptâ? defined by the organization. The social actorâ??s performance then will be judged by his or her ability to remain faithful to the script. (p 100)

I have tried to emphasize this point previously on this thread. An oppositional coalition has a very specific goal â?? to agitate the host society in order to invoke regulatory units. The dispute is â??broadenedâ? by involving the host society, even people without any personal connection to the NRM. It is not comprised solely of apostates â?? apostates are used in order to create that agitation. If the apostate narrative is not compliant, it will not be used.

RFM, on the other hand, is entirely comprised of exmembers, with very few exceptions. There is no script with one goal in mind, and unless one is an outright defender of the faith, any variation of the â??loss of faithâ? story is accepted.

Again from Wright:

Psychiatrists, therapists, and social workers form an important component of the ACM coalition since as â??helping professionalsâ? they provide lucrative counseling services to this population. The literature on exit-counseling is framed in terms of medicalization replete with terms like â??recoveryâ?, â??rehabilitationâ?, and â??healingâ? in describing work with-members. By casting the apostate as a â??victimâ? of cult-induced mental illness, exit therapists and anti-cult counselors parlay their institutionalized authority and position into venues of social control over disfavored groups. The â??treatmentâ? of ex-members isnâ??t simply a reintegration function for the sick; it is a powerful niche from which to wage a political campaign against NRMs; therapists become social control agents with private enforcement powers. For the apostate, alliance with respected institutional forces enables the disgruntled ex-member to transform personal grievances into a social problem,(p 102)

When the ACM realized that the government was not going to intervene â?? their first goal â?? then they changed tactics. As Shupe demonstrated with the â??wavesâ?, the organization then professionalized itself. That there exists a â??needâ? for professionals in the psychology field for help exmembers is a statement about the depravity of the NRM, as well as a career opportunity â?? none of which exists in RFM.

Look at this sentence: â??therapists become social control agents with private enforcement powersâ?. Again, the goal of the oppositional coalition is not simply to act as whistleblower clearinghouse (which describes the resources of RFM) but rather to invoke external society to invoke some sort of form of control over the NRM.

Chapter 7

Apostasy, Apocalypse, and Religious Violence: An Exploratory Comparison of the Peoples Temple, the Branch Davidians, and the Solar Temple

John R Hall and Philip Schuyler

The present chapter takes as its thesis the proposition that the most extreme cases of collective religious violence do not emerge from an intrinsic property of the groups themselves. Rather, our sociohistorical model theorizes that genesis of such violence in social conflicts between utopian religious movements on the one hand, and on the other hand, ideological proponents of an established social order, who seek to control â??cultsâ? through loosely institutionalized, emergent oppositional alliances. These alliances are typically crystallized by (1) cultural opponents of deviant groups, especially apostates and distraught relatives of members, but their consequences for violence depend on the degree to which they mobilize; (2) news reporters who frame cult stories in terms of moral deviance; and (3) modern governments that have incorporated the â??religiousâ? interest in enforcing cultural legitimacy into a state interest in monopolizing political legitimacy. ( 142)

This demonstrates why it is considered a coalition of disparate groups: note that the group is not comprised solely of exmembers.

In the discussion of David Koresh

The cultural opponents drawn together by Breault were mostly apostates from Koreshâ??s group, appalled that Koresh was teaching falsely from the Bible and engaging in polygamous practices of fathering children with teenaged brides â?? sometimes with the girlsâ?? parentsâ?? consent â?? for a new dynasty, the â??House of Davidâ?. To mobilize against this cultural deviance, the apostates followed what amounted to a generic ACM strategy. They recruited relatives concerned about their family members in the group, and they took their cause to a wide range of mass media outlets, governmental agencies, and politicicians. As with Peoples Temple, the opponents had a hard time getting the media and authorities even to take notice, much less action. And as with Peoples Temple, where the opponents succeeded in mobilizing external sources of legitimacy, the ways in which they did so were consequential for the play of events. (p 154)

This demonstrates that it is possible for an oppositional coalition to begin with exmembers. But then, by definition, it must broaden the dispute. Hence, the involvement of family members, mass media, govâ??t agencies, and politicians.

Once these ACMs realized that the government wasnâ??t going to do just what they wanted, they had to change tactics. Shupe discusses this in his essay, The Role of Apostates in the North American Anticult Movement.

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

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

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

Yes, one more time indeed.

You cannot simultaneously avail yourself of studies and research that was conducted based on the Bromley framework and then declare yourself free of his specific terminology. It just doesnâ??t work that way.

Itâ??s as if the Bromley model is an intricate rug. You are trying to pull out several threads from the middle of the rug and pretend it does not unravel the whole piece.

[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.

This is an example of how Juliann, in her attempt to broaden very specific research and terminology, has succeeded in completely redefining the terminology developed for that very specific model.

QUOTE

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

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

They were â??held captive by lack of informationâ? is nowhere near the captivity narratives described in the text. It is in an entirely different realm. Please. Do you really think that telling the host society that they were â??held captive by lack of informationâ? is going to agitate the host society against Mormonism? Of course not. The host society will only be agitated to the point of attempting to involve an external regulatory unit if the stories are horrendous, atrocious. Look at the examples I provided. One oppositional coalition tried to build a case that the brainwashing techniques of the NRM constituted a violation of the UN human rights convention.

That you pretend that â??being held captive by a lack of informationâ? is an equivalent charge displays either desperation, or a serious lack of comprehension of the text.

QUOTE

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

Pretty good atrocity tale!

This is whistleblowing, a la Fawn Brodie. The only part that could feasibly be called an atrocity tale is charges from early LDS history, when the LDS church was, indeed, viewed as a Subversive organization, and the real apostate narrative developed from that state.

QUOTE

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

The requisite brainwashing charge....

Again, this so fundamentally changes the meaning of the term â??brainwashingâ? as utilized in the text that it completely changes the entire theory. Imagine again, sharing these charges with the host society: just what outrage and motivation to action would these charges compel? Once again, this is clearly a whistleblower tale, attempting to reveal the cover-up the church has enacted, according to the exmember.

QUOTE

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

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

You have always found, and yet refuse to give evidence. The resistance you have encountered in the past is due to your approach, Juliann. Itâ??s due to things like putting quotation marks around â??courageâ?, â??truthâ?, â??conscienceâ?. That is why I challenged you to provide proof of your assertion that exmormons resist scrutiny. You blew me off as you always do. Itâ??s in â??every threadâ?, you responded. So is your attitude, your condescension and clear disdain. That is what critics are reacting to, Juliann, not simply being scrutinized.

And how has the resistance to scrutiny "happened here again"? You are simply being held accountable to your use of a specific resource you have clearly utilized to construct your theory. You tend to interpret people's reactions to your personal style as a reaction against being scrutinized or certain topics being discussed.

[Nighthawke]

Are you suggesting that every ex-Mormon narrative on RFM fits the above definition?

Where did I make that suggestion Ray? Because I don't see it. Can you point that out to me please, where I am "suggesting that every ex-Mormon narrative on RFM fits the above definition"?

[beastie]

(reposting because quote function did not work)

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.

Itâ??s not just an organization in opposition to the NRM that fits the definition. I have explained this so many times I think that you just canâ??t process it. A whistleblower also needs some sort of method of getting information â??out thereâ?, but simply publishing whistleblowing material does not mean the group in question is an oppositional coalition, as described in the Bromley model.

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.

No, I am claiming that the atrocity tale means something like what the examples in the text and the offered definitions clearly state.

That you think some ambiguous charge as â??they hid information from meâ?, â??I was brainwashed by my parents and teachers because they lied to meâ? constitutes a captivity and atrocity tale betrays your deep lack of understanding of the text. By altering what these very specific terms mean, you have altered the entire model.

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.

No, this is what Juliann says Beastie argued. As weâ??ve seen already, Juliann often doesnâ??t do a good job reporting what Beastie is arguing.

I have repeatedly stated that RFM is in opposition to the church. It combines a clearinghouse of whistleblower information along with a discussion board that is intended to provide emotional support to those exiting Mormonsim. You allow your disdain for even the idea that is not only the intent of that board, but that such a need even exists to color your ability to evaluate the clear purpose of the board and larger website.

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.

What in the heck are you talking about????? How can you have read that text and ask a question like this? How can you have read my posts and ask a question like this? Atrocity tales, as part of the apostate narrative, are being discussed in the text outside of evaluating their factuality. They charges may be true, or they may be false. That is irrelevant in the Bromley model. The fact that these charges have been publicly launched against the NRM testifies to: the NRM in question is considered a Subversive group by the host culture partly due to the fact that these charges are often coming from the host culture, not just exmembers and there exists an oppositional coalition attempting to seriously influence pubic opinion with extremely serious charges â?? real or not â?? in order to increase the concern and anxiety about the NRM in the host culture so the host culture will support the use of a regulatory agency to control the NRM.

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

I never said he was the only expert that can be used. However, despite your protest that you are â??beyond and done with Bromleyâ?, you have yet to provide evidence from other sources that do NOT rely on the Bromley model to support your theory.

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

I already addressed this in an earlier post tonight.

[beastie]

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.

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

I'm at a loss at why you think these citations demonstrate that RFM is an oppositional coalition that creates scripts for apostates.

[Nighthawke]

RFM is not an oppostional coalition. This is the entire problem with your model. Perhaps apostates, under the Bromley model, post at RFM, but RFM is not an oppositional coalition that demands an apostate narrative that fits certain criteria.

I do not know any internet apostates anywhere that fit this definition. I imagine they would be associated with the theological regulatory ACM. If you believe that Tal Bachman and Bob McCue fit the definition, you need to defend it. Show us their atrocity tales, show us their captivity tales.

RfM is an oppositional coalition. Why do we need to show you their atrocity tales/captivity tales when RfM has so graciously offered to do it?

We are former Mormons, sympathetic non-Mormons, or non-believing Mormons of record who left or rejected Mormonism after having discovered that its claims are false, its message misleading, its methods of proselytizing dishonest, and its promises of happiness and salvation hollow. We, or those we know, spent countless years living according to its rules, obeying its leaders, and serving as its teachers, officers, missionaries, and devoted followers.

We want the world to know of the harm it causes, the families it devastates, the methods it uses to control minds, and the half-truths and deceptions by which it deludes the public, particularly those who are approached by its missionaries. We want to warn those who are not well-acquainted with it that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. We have been there, and we want the world to have the facts.

We, the Exmormon Foundation:

-Offer emotional support to those who are leaving, or who have left, Mormonism;

-Sponsor seminars, conferences, and speakers about Mormonism, primarily for those who are leaving Mormonism, but also for all who wish to know more;

-Advertise the efforts of the Foundation and others who are working toward similar goals;

-Are recognized by the media and by the general public as a responsible and reliable counter-voice on Mormonism; our views on specific issues having to do with Mormonism are sought out and promulgated by the national media.

-Provide speakers through a speakers bureau for organizations, churches and other groups interested in learning about Mormonism;

-Are a counter-force to the massive Mormon missionary and advertising effort.

-Encourage everyone - Mormons and non-Mormons - to examine carefully, objectively, and with an open mind the claims of the Mormon church before accepting or rejecting them;

-Provide reliable, attractive, inexpensive and factual resources, via the internet and other media, to conduct such thorough examination;

-Review and critique the church's propaganda as well as materials by others on Mormonism, both pro and con;

-Raise funds through private contributions and other financing activities;

-Provide financial support to individuals and groups who are working to present a more accurate view of Mormonism.

The Foundation is organized as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State of Oregon. As such, donations to the Foundation are fully tax-deductible. It is not affiliated with and does not endorse any church, religion, creed or political party. It is a democratic organization, responsible to its members. Membership is open to all who share these goals.

About the Foundation

[beastie]

Let me repeat. This started over the objection that I used RFM. It is really disingenous to ignore that to fall back on dinosaurs like Decker (who isn't even taken seriously by a lot of antis) and people who aren't even alive anymore.

If you don't acknowledge that new apostates are being produced then a statement that they can be but aren't is no acknowledgement at all.

Don't blame me for your sloppiness. You didn't ask me if RFM fosters apostates and their narratives. You acted as if I were saying that modern LDS apostates just don't exist.

[Nighthawke]

Beastie,

Just a reminder not to get too hung up on the atrocity/captivity tale since, as I posted earlier:

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.

[Ray Agostini]

Where did I make that suggestion Ray? Because I don't see it. Can you point that out to me please, where I am "suggesting that every ex-Mormon narrative on RFM fits the above definition"?

NH, if you say you're not suggesting it, I'll accept your word. It was a question for which I wanted clarification. I sought the same clarification from Juliann above, because some of her quotations seemed contradictory, eg., Cowan. 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.

[beastie]

RfM is an oppositional coalition. Why do we need to show you their atrocity tales/captivity tales when RfM has so graciously offered to do it?

Did you even read the examples of atrocity tales given in the text, NH? Are you seriously contending that these statements rise to that level?

I already addressed this nonsense with Juliann. To fundamentally alter the terms and the specific meanings attached in the text alters the entire model. They are not talking about "they hid information from me", "my parents and teachers brainwashed me by lying to me". They were making charges that they felt rose to the level of violations of the human rights declaration by the UN.

At this point, I think that the inability to recognize the different nature of these charges is willful and all the citations in the world from the text won't help.

[beastie]

Just for information: I am returning to work tomorrow, my break is over. This will drastically reduce the amount of time I can devote to this thread.

[Nighthawke]

NH, if you say you're not suggesting it, I'll accept your word. It was a question for which I wanted clarification. I sought the same clarification from Juliann above, because some of her quotations seemed contradictory, eg., Cowan. 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.

Except that Cowan is THE authority today. In other words Cowan trumps Bromley, Shupe and even Mauss.

What do you think Juliann?

[beastie]

I wanted to address something from this post of Juliann on the main part of the board:

What I learned in the Sociology of Religion class which really changed my perspective is that people craft narratives. There are conversion narratives (think testimony meeting) and there are deconversion narratives (think RFM). They are flip sides of the same coin. We all do it. We all have to craft a narrative that is acceptable to the group we want to affiliate with. That brings in the group and the group brings in the "apostate". An apostate, in sociology lingo, is a hostile critic who is out to do damage to the group he was once affiliated with. When most people deconvert from a religion they have negative emotions but they simply move on to something else...as in any other separation we encounter in life situations. But there are individuals who cannot or will not. To be an apostate requires backing because the person needs a platform to be heard. The group provides the support and platform, thus...controlling the narrative. The group's purpose is to bring down the religion, make enough noise to cause social/legal sanctions, etc. When narratives are analyzed they contain common elements. And so on.

I find this of great interest because it puts conversion and deconversion on the same footing, thus taking the mystery out of it. It becomes a choice instead of making us all helpless pawns that are acted upon (a necessary element of the apostate narrative). THis is upsetting to apostates, of course...they need to be acted upon to make their narrative compelling. That is where the arguing starts with the dedicated critics...several exmos were delighted with it. It puts us all on equal footing.

I think this reveals a lot about where the disagreement is originating. I've already stated this on this thread, but will try again.

Of course all human beings construct narratives about their lives, behaviors, and choices. All human beings tend to make their statements conform to the desires of the group. I would agree that an "exmormon narrative" (ie, "I lost faith in the church because...") is a narrative in the same way that a mormon narrative would be (ie, "I believe in the church because...)

The problem is that an apostate narrative is in an entirely different category from either of these examples. Statements like Cowan's are supportive of the exmormon/mormon narrative comparison. But the apostate narrative, as described by Bromley, is an entirely different beast. It is the desire to make the apostate narrative the functional equivalent of the mormon narrative that is causing these problems for Juliann.

The apostate narrative is different because it is entirely controlled by the group, ie, the oppositional coalition. They want a particular script, and just won't use it otherwise. How is that comparable to, say, the mormon narrative? (I believe in the church because....)

[Nighthawke]

Did you even read the examples of atrocity tales given in the text, NH? Are you seriously contending that these statements rise to that level?

I already addressed this nonsense with Juliann. To fundamentally alter the terms and the specific meanings attached in the text alters the entire model. They are not talking about "they hid information from me", "my parents and teachers brainwashed me by lying to me". They were making charges that they felt rose to the level of violations of the human rights declaration by the UN.

At this point, I think that the inability to recognize the different nature of these charges is willful and all the citations in the world from the text won't help.

So that is what it boils down to for you? Alright. Keeping in mind the many narratives found on the RfM Internet site, rate the following atrocity/captivity charges:

1. Child abuse

2. Salmonella poisoning

3. Stockpiling weapons

4. Mormonism harms people

5. Mormonism devastates families

6. Mormonism controls minds

7. Mormonism deceives the public

For me, 4, 5 and 6 trump salmonella poisoning (diarrhoea, headaches and stomach cramps) and stockpiling weapons (heck many Americans stockpile weapons as a hobby.) Surely you're not going to suggest that something that is harming people, devastating families and mind-controling an entire group to the point where a coalition of people has made it their mission to warn the world about it is outranked by diarrhoea and someone's gun collection?

[beastie]

Regarding Ed Decker as apostate:

Of course most exmormons don't take him seriously. Why would they? His accusations are completely over the top. But that is what an apostate narrative is. It is over the top. It is extreme charges, wild accusations - the type of stuff that makes the hair stand up. It has to be.

I don't think you have ever really processed what the purpose of the oppositional coalition is. It isn't just to spread bad stuff about the organization. It is to so seriously color public opinion - not exmember opinion - public opinion about the NRM that the host society will believe that the NRM constitutes such a serious threat to society that it is justified in restricting freedom of religion and expression. The only reason ACM have retreated into other social controls, like professionalizing and moving into psychology - is because the government just wouldn't play.

Now those over-the-top charges may be true or they may be false. There are examples of each in the Bromley text. But they are all over the top. That is the point.

And the fact that most exmormons don't take Decker seriously means that, in the Bromley narrative, they aren't "apostates".