Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How you describe the Church in your posts tells a VASTLY different story than your protestations here.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ll make it up to you. Send me a PM with your address and I’ll send you a copy of The Accidental Terrorist. 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there a court decision issued that explains how the court took his comment?  Maybe Smac knows how to access it easily as I am too lazy to google…though I might in a bit, so don’t bother to look for it unless you know where it is already.   

To be blunt, my guess is the prosecution offered up another fully qualified and admitted expert witness who argued against this claim.  And my guess is the defendant’s lawyer expert shopped until he found an expert willing to say this.  

So if this claim has only been used once in court and that one time was rejected by the court as a valid argument (this is why the court judgment would be more useful imo than just stating that is what the expert claimed) and even the expert has not repeated the claim, I don’t find this instance that impressive myself.

Repeated claims by an expert and more than one would be better (my guess is if the defending council could have found another expert to say the same thing, they would have put them on the stand…but perhaps their budget didn’t allow that as experts aren’t volunteers), especially if persuasive to the court.

That's pretty insulting to those of us who are actually expert witnesses. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but it's far less common than the popular belief would suggest.

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ll make it up to you. Send me a PM with your address and I’ll send you a copy of The Accidental Terrorist. 

I believe it has been described sufficiently here.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Calling in the bomb threat was ridiculously extreme, but that’s only one page in the book. The full title of the book is The Accidental Terrorist: Confessions of a Reluctant Missionary. It’s the detailed story of his mission that tells about the missionaries he interacted with and the psychological and sociological pressure that get people to go on missions, and then the barriers that keep people from quitting once they are out there. The missionary who called in the bomb threat took pretty extreme actions to quit his own mission a few months earlier, but the Church deployed even more extreme manipulation to get him to stay. Then he eventually drank the Kool-Aid and refused to let anybody make the “mistake" he tried to make himself.

If you want to hear an honest missionary story, read the book.

Has the story been confirmed by others involved as an accurate retelling?  Not just the basic fact of the bomb scare, but specifically the more extreme pressure tactics.

I have read my dad’s autobiography and his retelling of his interactions with me, my choices and motivations bear little resemblance to my memories of what we engaged in.  My sister, the English professor helping him write it, and my mother encouraged him to contact me and my other siblings to get feedback, but he was enjoying the storytelling aspect too much (iow, he thought his version was likely the better story) and couldn’t be bothered.

I have heard something similar often occurs with other memoirs, even published and acclaimed ones.  The most notable example I remember are the various critiques of Krakauer’s memoir on Everest.  For example here:  https://www.insidehook.com/books/excerpt-jon-krakauer-got-wrong-everest-inc  Wiki also has some details.  There was even a book by a guide on the climb called The Climb.

Disclaimer:  I have no doubt that many autobiographers go all out to document their stories whether or not they include that documentation.  That would be the type of autobiography I would aim for (and where I couldn’t, I would have a ton of disclaimers about faulty memories, different POVs, etc).  I can’t be the only who cares that much.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How you describe the Church in your posts tells a VASTLY different story than your protestations here.

He is differentiating between the missionary experience and the general Church experience and is not applying the label to either, but just pointing out there are cult like characteristics, more in the missionary and less in the general church experience.  (He can correct me if I have missed his point)

The Church more or less controls the missionary experience and why bring up the characteristics unless one think it means something, so in one sense your criticism is appropriate imo, but it is inaccurate and confusing to apply his comments as a broad observation when they are not, imo.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you want to hear an honest missionary story, read the book.

Wow.  I really hope you didn't mean this the way it comes across, because that emphasis on the word "honest" there comes across as dismissive and condescending.  

My own missionary stories and experiences are not any less honest because I didn't experience that level of manipulation or over reaction.  My wife's missionary stories and experiences are not any less honest because she didn't experience that level of manipulation or over reaction.  The missionary stories of millions of others are not any less honest because they didn't experience that level of manipulation or over reaction.  

Honest missionary stories are told every day.  I told them to my seminary students for years, starting each class period with readings from my journal, which contained the good, the bad, and the ugly. Honest missionary stories can and do include stories of miracles and inspiration and unity.  There's nothing dishonest in the stories I've told, nor in the stories told by millions of others.  

Careful that you don't give the label of "honest" only to the stories that advance the narratives you endorse.  They may indeed be honest, but by placing that type of emphasis on the word, you imply that other stories are less than honest.

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's pretty insulting to those of us who are actually expert witnesses. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but it's far less common than the popular belief would suggest.

I knew I should have added the disclaimer (I actually started writing it, but it wasn’t flowing well and leading me off into a rabbit trail as often happens, so decided it was okay to delete the half sentence and post as is, but I was worried about it being taken the wrong way, should have trusted the gut) that I did not mean the expert altered his testimony to fit the need of the client and was just mentioning the limitations a lawyer would have on providing the best defense for their client, which would be providing as many experts as the court would allow supporting their argument, which is why I was thinking the point there wasn’t more than one witness claiming the military as a cult wasn’t very strong, the lack of more witnesses might have nothing to do with the number of experts who believe that and everything to do with the budget of the defending lawyer.  Wealthy clients l am guessing get to have several, but public defenders as I understand it have to justify it, etc.  I assume a military prison guard had a public defender or pro bono lawyer that had a tight budget and so they got the best one witness.  Not knowing anything about the case, though, my guesses could be completely off.

As far as the term “shopping”, I just meant it would be stupid for the lawyer to pick a random expert and hope they would support their case, so of course they looked around until they found one who did support it.  In no way is that meant to imply the expertise offered is tainted.

I highly doubt that the vast majority of expert witnesses are going to change their testimony based on the case.  They are likely known as expert and desired as witnesses because they have been consistent and are trusted in their field (have various credentials from governing institutions or whatever you call those groups, degrees from reputable universities, so many years work experience, peer reviewed publications, etc).   And even if I had a poor view of experts, which I don’t, it would be at the most pragmatic level counterproductive to offer paid for testimony as a general livelihood as it would give the other side a great way to rebut their expertise.  

Edited July 10, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

No, that’s not what I’m saying. 

What I’m saying is that if you were to actually read what Dr. Hassan says, there are spectrums of healthy and unhealthy ways groups try to influence you, and the degree to which the influences are healthy or unhealthy depend a lot upon the specific situations of the individuals involved. The BITE model isn’t intended to make a black-and-white determination of whether or not a group is a “cult.” The point is to help people evaluate patterns of undue influence that can compromise your ability to truly think freely.

Based on the article, I believe that Dan Reynolds agrees with this way of thinking.

On a scale of 1 to 10 on the spectrum of how intensely the Church employees “cult mind control” tactics, I gave it a 3 or 4. Notice that is lower than giving it a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. In contrast, I’d give the FLDS Church a 10. Based on what I’ve heard, I’d give the army’s basic training program a 7 or 8.

I think when Reynolds says he wants to not manipulate his kids, he wants to raise them on that spectrum with more:

• Authentic self
• Unconditional love
• Compassion
• Conscience
• Creativity and humor
• Free will/critical thinking

And with less:

• Identity coming from the Church
• Conditional “love"
• Judgmentalism
• Doctrine
• Solemnity, fear and guilt
• Dependency and obedience

The reason I entered this thread is because you had said, "Teaching someone what you sincerely believe is the best way to live or the best spiritual path is not manipulation.” I think that is what misses the point. Reynolds isn’t talking about the parents sincerity. He is talking about using “cult mind control tactics” that try to manipulate people by controlling their emotions, feelings, and the information they are given access to.

Reiterating the point, the question isn’t to answer the binary question of whether or not the Church is a “cult.” The question is to answer the extent to which they use destructive mind control.

Yes, that would be like that, but you are replying to a straw man, not to anything that Hassan or I ever said.

 

There are many many many members that are raising their kids with more of the "more" list and less of the "less" list you posted above, all while being believing active members of the church.  Those lists really don't have much to do with the church; they are a reflection of the individual members and their different parenting styles and personalities (and a reflection of the beliefs of the people making the lists).

I have no problem with wanting to raise kids in specific ways.  My issue is when you label teaching kids things you agree with as good and teaching kids things you don't agree with as manipulation.  

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I didn’t say it was impressive. I said it was ironic. 

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you said that.  The word was in my head due to your comment about Hassan.

Quote

But it is an impressive recommendation.

 

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are many many many members that are raising their kids with more of the "more" list and less of the "less" list you posted above, all while being believing active members of the church.  Those lists really don't have much to do with the church; they are a reflection of the individual members and their different parenting styles and personalities (and a reflection of the beliefs of the people making the lists).

That's great to hear.

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no problem with wanting to raise kids in specific ways.  My issue is when you label teaching kids things you agree with as good and teaching kids things you don't agree with as manipulation.  

Whether something is “manipulation” isn’t a function of whether or not I happen to agree with it. Rather, it is a function of how it is taught in the context of presenting a full and accurate account of the facts, and how you go about using social influence tactics to be persuasive. 

Of course the distinction gets murky when an emotionally laden belief of the form “every time you throw a plastic bottle in the trash, God kills a turtle.” Indoctrinating your kid with something like that is manipulation, regardless of whether you sincerely believe it is true or not.

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you said that.  The word was in my head due to your comment about Hassan.

Thanks. To be clear, when I said Zimbardo’s endorsement of Hassan was impressive, I merely meant to imply that Hassan ought to be taken seriously, not that an endorsement proves that when Hassan has spoken, the thinking has been done.

[bluebell]

Just now, Analytics said:

That's great to hear.

It's odd that it's news to you and something you were unaware of.  

Quote

 

Whether something is “manipulation” isn’t a function of whether or not I happen to agree with it. Rather, it is a function of how it is taught in the context of presenting a full and accurate account of the facts, and how you go about using social influence tactics to be persuasive. 

 

Oh I agree.  It's just that, in this conversation, whether or not something is considered manipulation seems to be completely dependent on how the person applying the term views the church.  And that's why I've spoken out about the sketchiness of its use by Reynolds and you.

Quote

Of course the distinction gets murky when an emotionally laden belief of the form “every time you throw a plastic bottle in the trash, God kills a turtle.” Indoctrinating your kid with something like that is manipulation, regardless of whether you sincerely believe it is true or not.

Why would that be manipulation but telling someone that they will die if they jump out of an airplane without a parachute not be?  

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks. To be clear, when I said Zimbardo’s endorsement of Hassan was impressive, I merely meant to imply that Hassan ought to be taken seriously, not that an endorsement proves that when Hassan has spoken, the thinking has been done.

That was clear to me.   

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In any case, not being “free to leave” doesn’t mean you are literally physically restrained from leaving. Rather, the opposite of being free to leave is being indoctrinated that there are no legitimate reasons to leave. 

Ok.  I think I understand your definition of "free to leave".   Unless you are specifically told, or have access to information that clearly spells out how to leave, then, in your definition, you are "indoctrinated" that there are "no reasons to leave".  

I'm a fan of Smac's word "unserious", but I also think your definition is goofy, silly, weird, unsupportable, unconvincing, and plain old wrong.   Your bar for being indoctrinated is so low, I'm having a hard time believing that you believe it yourself.  

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

On a scale of 1 to 10, I said the FLDS etc. are a 10, while the mainstream LDS Church is a 3 or 4.

And what's your take about SEAL or Special Forces military training, medical school residency requirements, scared straight programs for convicted offenders, or desired daily routines for olympians?  I expect there's quite a bit of explicit "Don't even think about doing this if you're gonna quit"-type language given these folks.  Especially in the cutthroat world of professional olympian athletics, with all the corporate sponsoring and whatnot.  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Not really.  Analogies to the Army are apt because both institutions (it and the Church) impose considerable, but very short-term, restrictions on trainees, and thereafter ease up on those restrictions considerably.  

Nobody characterizes the Army as a "cult" for doing this.

Actually, Zimbardo has. That’s my point.

I doubt this.  CFR, please.

If Zimbardo claims that Basic Training regimens make the U.S. Army (and, presumably, the other Armed Forces branches) cultic, then he is an idiot.  No serious-minded person would believe this (people enthralled with scientism and credentialism might, tho).

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Zimbardo is a fully qualified expert witness, and testified in court that the Army practices destructive mind control.

Oh, brother.  I'm not talking about Abu Ghraib.  

You cannot be seriously comparing the regiment at the Church's MTCs to Abu Ghraib.  I just cannot believe you are that far gone.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Can you see the irony now?

No.  I have never claimed that the excesses at Abu Ghraib were justified or proper.  I have, instead, suggested that the U.S. Army's Basic Training regimen is substantially more rigorous, controlling, intrusive, etc. into the lives of trainees as compared to the regimen experienced by missionaries in the MTC.  I have further suggested that despite this comparatively potent military regimen, no serious-minded person therefore concludes that the U.S. Army is a "cult," and ipso facto, it is unreasonable to argue - as you have - that the milder MTC regimen makes the Church a "cult."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

I never said a 2-8 week stay at the MTC renders the church a cult.

Oh, brother.

You are arguing that the Church is a "cult" because it supposedly fits into Steve Hassan's "BITE" model:

Quote

A psychologist by the name of Dr. Steven Hassan specializes in helping people escape from “cults.”  About 20 years ago, he got a call from a mother who was concerned that her daughter had joined a cult by being baptized a Mormon and asked Dr. Hassan for help. Hassan said he didn’t know if Mormonism was a cult or not, and said he’d do some research on it.

At the time, I had my own website that served as a blog where I was deconstructing my former faith, and I wrote a lot about the missionary experience. Steven Hassan found my site in a Google search and asked me for some help in determining whether Mormonism is a cult. He sent me a questionnaire with about 100 questions that he uses to determine whether an organization is a cult, and asked me to fill them out for Mormonism. According to his BITE model, to the extent a religion excessively controls your Behavior, the Information you are exposed to, what your Thoughts are, and what your Emotions are, you are the victim of cult mind control. Please keep in mind that at the time Hassan knew absolutely nothing about Mormonism. His experiences and research was in things like the Unification Church and Zen Master Rama.

Here is what I found fascinating about the questions: it was absolutely uncanny how much the missionary rules reflected the BITE model. For example, the top 10 ways cults control your behavior are:

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions

It goes on and on and on. It’s as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control. The truth is that the missionary experience wasn’t based on Hassan’s model, and Hassan didn’t create his model based on Mormonism. Rather, Mormonism naturally evolved and perpetuates by having the characteristics that cause members to believe. If the Church stopped exercising “cult mind control” members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist.

But to be fair, outside the mission experience the “cult mind control” of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

(Emphases added.)

You thereafter doubled down on this by specifically referring to the MTC:

Quote

Quote

 

I don't know what "regulate individual's physical reality" means.

The Church does not do shunning, nor cloistering, nor compounds, etc.  

 

You haven’t been to the MTC?

You have done nothing but argue that the Church's missionary program - particularly the MTC - is a form of "cult mind control."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, that’s the guy.

You really know how to pick 'em.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Originally you were implying that we should only listen to people who have been officially qualified as an expert witness.

Not really.  I am proposing that merely having academic credentials does not an expert make, nor do self-designations do it either.

I think Catherine Mann was broadly correct when she observed:

Quote

Steve Hassan’s Twitter handle also can be seen as an interesting example of his problem with defining terms and labels. His Twitter handle is “cult expert”. Being qualified and accepted in a court of law as an expert is typically meaningful proof of expertise. But Mr Hassan has never provided expert testimony in a court of law. What authority then, outside of Hassan himself, has officially recognized him as an expert concerning cults? For that matter has an authority officially recognized Hassan as an expert in anything?

These are fair questions.  And you have not (and, I suspect, cannot) answer them.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Now you are moving the bar and implying that we should only listen to qualified expert witnesses who have never testified in a case on behalf of a party that lost the case, right? 

No.

Qualifying as an expert witness can be "meaningful proof of expertise," but even then it's more of a threshold factor.  I don't dispute that Dr. Zimbardo may meet this threshold, but you've presented nothing from him about whether the Church is a "cult."  Instead, you seek to bolster Hassan's credibility/expertise by pointing to the dust jacket blurb Zimbardo wrote for Hassan's book.  That is mighty weak tea.

If Zimbardo has said something about the Church being a "cult," please present it.  Otherwise, this is a red herring.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

No, no, and no. Zimbardo’s expert witness testimony is ironic, because:

1- He is a fully qualified expert witness

What does "fully qualified expert witness" mean?  

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

2- He testified that the military uses destructive mind control techniques

At Abu Ghraib, yes.  Nobody is defending what happened there.  The misconduct at Abu Ghraib arose, I think, primarily due to conflict between MP (Military Police) doctrines/regulations regarding detention and MI (Military Intelligence) doctrines/regulations regarding interrogation, as well as a broad disregard and widespread violations of military regulations (U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10 ("The Law of Land Warfare"), the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 93 (prohibiting cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of a person subject to an accused's orders), Article 128 (assault), Article 134 (General article)), Army Regulation (AR) 190-8 ("Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees"), the Geneva Conventions, United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), and so on.

Put simply, the abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in contravention of applicable laws and regulations, not in conformity with them.  This was, I think, part of Dr. Zimbardo's assessment, namely, that the abuses occurred not because the Powers-That-Be in Abu Ghraib enforced the foregoing laws and regulations, but because they did not:

Quote

"The horrific acts committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not the result of a few 'bad apples,' but rather the predictable outcome of placing psychologically normal people in a situation rife with stress, fear, and unregulated power." (The Lucifer Effect, p. 322).

"The real culprits were the people higher up the chain of command who created this 'bad barrel' of abuse... They should be held accountable for creating the conditions that allowed these horrors to occur." (The Lucifer Effect, p. 401).

I find it fascinating that Dr. Zimbardo's actions in the Stanford Prison Experiment were more or less the same thing that the Powers-that-Be at Abu Ghraib did.  

But all of this has little to do with the topic at hand.  Has Dr. Zimbardo said this about the Army's Basic Training program?  If so, CFR.  Otherwise, your invocation of Abu Ghraib as a comparison to a missionary's life at the MTC, or to any other aspect of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is appalling and beyond the pale of civil discourse.

No wonder, really, that you post anonymously and get huffy when your previously-disclosed IRL name comes out.  Characterizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult" by invoking Steve Hassan and alluding to Abu Ghraib, may well be the low watermark of your long sojourn on this board.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, as far as I know Steve Hassan has never assessed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And yet, you brought him up and have quoted him extensively to justify your characterization of the Church as a "cult."

Hassan has done several interviews with John Dehlin:

What the Mormon Church Can Learn From Cults Pt. 1 w/ Dr. Steven Hassan - Ep. 938 (1.5 hours)

What the Mormon Church Can Learn From Cults Pt. 2 w/ Steven Hassan - Ep. 939 (1.3 hours)

Joining and Leaving the Moonies / Unification Church - Cult Expert Dr. Steven Hassan | Ep. 1743 (3.5 hours)

Recovering after Mormonism with Dr. Steven Hassan | Ep. 1744 (3.3 hours)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Earlier on this thread, Smac said that missionaries are free to leave any time for any reason or for no reason at all.

Yes.  It would be unlawful for the Church to restrain them.  If missionaries were not free to leave, the Church would be getting sued all over the place for instances where missionaries were not allowed to leave.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In every job I’ve ever had, I was told that in writing.

I question that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

However, missionary calls don’t say that you are free to quit your mission at any time for any reason, do they?

Your reasoning is that because the missionary handbook doesn't explicitly say that missionaries are free to quit, missionaries are not free to quit?

That is dumb.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Missionaries are never given instructions on how to resign from their missions if they so choose, are they?

Your reasoning is that because the missionary handbook doesn't explicitly instruct missionaries how to quit, missionaries are not free to quit?

That is dumb.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Accidental Terrorist tells the true story of a couple of missionaries who wanted to quit and the extreme lengths the Church went to in order to prevent them. The climax of the story is that when a missionary snuck away to the airport and was going home. He was already through security when his companion called the mission president and told him the missionary was escaping. The mission president was racing to the airport in order to talk the individual out of his decision, and the companion was instructed to delay the plane taking off long enough for the mission president to get there. In an act of desperation to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president had a chance to talk him out of it, the companion called up the airline and said, “There’s a bomb in a suitcase on Flight 789."

Oh, brother.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In any case, not being “free to leave” doesn’t mean you are literally physically restrained from leaving.

You know, it kinda does mean that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rather, the opposite of being free to leave is being indoctrinated that there are no legitimate reasons to leave. 

You're just making this up as you go along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

The Accidental Terrorist tells the true story of a couple of missionaries who wanted to quit and the extreme lengths the Church went to in order to prevent them. The climax of the story is that when a missionary snuck away to the airport and was going home. He was already through security when his companion called the mission president and told him the missionary was escaping. The mission president was racing to the airport in order to talk the individual out of his decision, and the companion was instructed to delay the plane taking off long enough for the mission president to get there. In an act of desperation to prevent the missionary from leaving before the mission president had a chance to talk him out of it, the companion called up the airline and said, “There’s a bomb in a suitcase on Flight 789."

Are you arguing that this single, extreme event is representative of how difficult missions are to leave generally?  Are you really extrapolating from this one, extreme outlier of an event onto the hundreds of other mission presidents and tens of thousands of other missionaries?  That's pretty shaky logic, even for you.

I think his invocation of Abu Ghraib was even shakier:

1. Abusive practices happened in the Army at Abu Ghraib.  Ergo, the U.S. Army uses "cult mind control."
2. Dr. Zimbardo testified as an expert witness about these abusive practices.
3. Dr. Zimbardo also wrote a dust jacket blurb for one of Steve Hassan's books.
4. Dr. Zimbardo's competency as an expert in psychology therefore ports over to Steve Hassan, particularly to his (Hassan's) BITE model.
5. Roger thinks that Hassan's BITE model of "cult mind control" fits the Church's missionary program in "absolutely uncanny" ways, and that "{i}t's as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control."
6. Roger even goes further than that, claiming that the Church exerts so much "cult mind control" over its members that "{i}f the Church stopped exercising 'cult mind control' members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist."
7. Ergo, the Church is a cult.

FWIW, my MOS ("Military Occupational Specialty) in the Army (the Utah Army National Guard) was "97E IPW (Interrogator, Prisoners of War)." This training included twelve months of language training (Russian) at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, followed by a 4-month AIT ("Advanced Individual Training") course on interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca, AZ.  As it happened, I was never activated for military service, and I finished out my 8-year National Guard contract, then left in 1999. 

One of the most potent aspects of the course of instruction was dispelling any notion of torture or mistreatment as being part of any interrogation of a subject.  The instructors were very clear and emphatic about this, reviewing various Army regulations prohibiting any form of abuse, and also detailing the punishments that could be meted out for any interrogator that violated them.

Again, the abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred in violation of military law, so Roger's invocation of that affair in this thread is poor logic.  It is also pretty offensive for those of us who have served in the military to be told that the U.S. Army is "cultic" or exercises "cult mind control."  

Basic Training was a pretty challenging time, but it only lasted two months.  A number of trainees dropped out, either due to physical/health issues, or because of behavioral problems.  Serving in the Army is, or can be, a tough gig.  And in the end, the fundamental expectation of every solder, regardless of his MOS or job, is to pick up a weapon, go into harm's way, and use violence to defend the United States.

Given this prospective and anticipated use of violence, it makes perfect sense that the Army would A) implement rules and regulation regarding such military violence, and B) "vet" trainees to make sure they are mentally and physically capable of following orders given in conformity with those rules and regulations.  Such "vetting" necessarily involves replicating, to a limited extend, the stresses and rigors of combat.  This replication will obviously involve weapons training, and also a more fundamental alteration of a trainee's mindset so that he is willing to follow lawful orders in stressful circumstances."

I find it banal and stupid for Roger to characterize the U.S. Army's training regimen as "cult mind control."  Basic Training and virtually all other forms of military training and life is not "cultic" by any reasonable use of that word, and Roger insults military veterans by saying or implying otherwise.  Abu Ghraib was an atrocity, and it arose in violation of the foregoing principles.  It was a breakdown in command and control, not an intended manifestation of it.

Serving in the military is a unique situation, and not one readily comparable to civilian life.  A solder voluntarily puts on a uniform, takes an oath, agrees to follow the lawful orders of his superiors, receive training, stay in shape, and so on.  It is often a pretty rigorous lifestyle, which is necessary because soldiers are being asked to do things that civilians are not.  And the most rigorous part of military life is the preliminary training, after which things relax.

This military training is not reasonably characterized as "cultic" or "cult mind control."  Its rules and rigors are necessary and appropriate given the role of the U.S. Army.

There are some similarities to be observed in the life of a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is an acute thing for me, since I spent 18 months in the Army, and thereafter spent two years (25 months, to be precise) as a missionary.  Missionaries are likewise volunteers.  They are asked to to do, and not do, things that are not fully expected of "civilians" (the lay members of the Church).  Missionaries put on a "uniform" of sorts (clothing guidelines, missionary tag), follow rules and instructions from leaders, and otherwise lead a fairly rigorous and regimented lifestyle which - again - is not fully expected of run-of-the-mill members of the church.  The most rigorous part of missionary life is the MTC, after which things relax. 

This missionary training is not reasonably characterized as "cultic" or "cult mind control."  Its rules and rigors are necessary and appropriate given the role of missionaries in the Church.

Roger's accusations of "cult mind control" and such have been all over the place.  I suspect he has been vituperating against the Church for so long, and in such vicious and uncivil ways, that he has lost track of normal standards of civility and decorum.  I hope he has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's odd that it's news to you and something you were unaware of.  

Oh I agree.  It's just that, in this conversation, whether or not something is considered manipulation seems to be completely dependent on how the person applying the term views the church.  And that's why I've spoken out about the sketchiness of its use by Reynolds and you.

Why would that be manipulation but telling someone that they will die if they jump out of an airplane without a parachute not be?  

It depends upon whether we’re talking about a real-world airplanes and parachutes, or whether we’re talking about airplanes and parachutes in a different realm or airplanes and parachutes we won’t see until after we’re dead.

You might sincerely prefer that your child return home in a pine box dead than come home from a mission early, but your sincerity about that doesn’t mean laying that guilt trip on him isn’t manipulative.

That’s how I see it. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You might sincerely prefer that your child return home in a pine box dead than come home from a mission early, but your sincerity about that doesn’t mean laying that guilt trip on him isn’t manipulative.

That’s how I see it. 

I've seen parents refuse to identify their infants as boy or girl, and demand adherence to that practice from friends, neighbors, society in general, and even demand it get enshrined in law and governmental practice.  I've seen some parents push their children as young as 6 to chose their pronouns.  Got any energy to characterize what those parents are doing to their children?

Related - I took this picture at WalMart in 2021:

Ya know.  Since we're talking about indoctrination.

Edited July 10, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

've seen parents refuse to identify their infants as boy or girl, and demand adherence to that practice from friends, neighbors, society in general, and even demand it get enshrined in law and governmental practice.  I've seen some parents push their children as young as 6 to chose their pronouns

Do you think this is good or bad? 

[Analytics]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No wonder, really, that you post anonymously and get huffy when your previously-disclosed IRL name comes out. 

I expect board members to have the common courtesy of obeying the board’s rules. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Characterizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult" by invoking Steve Hassan....

That is false. My exact words were, "outside the mission experience the 'cult mind control' of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Saying that the Church employees relatively little “cult mind control” (i.e. 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10) is not characterizing the Church as a cult. You suggesting otherwise indicates an inability on your part to have an honest conversation about this. The conversation isn’t about whether or not the Church is a “cult.” The conversation is about what Reynolds meant when he said he didn’t want to manipulate his kids.

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ll make it up to you. Send me a PM with your address and I’ll send you a copy of The Accidental Terrorist. 

Right.

Abu Ghraib is representative of the totality of the U.S. Army, its "cult mind control" techniques, and the generalized and common lives and experiences and actions of U.S. servicemembers.

The Accidental Terrorist is representative of the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its "cult mind control" techniques, and the generalized and common lives and experiences and actions of Latter-day Saint missionaries. 

We Latter-day Saints are better of with letting people like Roger characterize our faith.  He has a better grasp of our lives and experiences that we do.  Or . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

No wonder, really, that you post anonymously and get huffy when your previously-disclosed IRL name comes out. 

I expect board members to have the common courtesy of obeying the board’s rules. 

You have come to this board and told the Latter-day Saints that their Church exercises "cult mind control" over them.

You have sought to justify this denigration by invoking a comparison between Abu Ghraib and the Church's missionary program.

And now you are talking about "common courtesy."

The irony.  It burns.

I don't blame you for not wanting your IRL name to be attached to the ugly things you say on this board.  If I went to a message board peopled by Jews, or Muslims, or Catholics, or LGBT folks, and behave towards them the way you behave here, I would likely want to hide behind a pseudonym.  As it is, though, I choose not to emulate your behavior.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Characterizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult" by invoking Steve Hassan and alluding to Abu Ghraib, may well be the low watermark of your long sojourn on this board.

That is false.  

You're the one who invoked Abu Ghraib, Roger.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My exact words were, "outside the mission experience the 'cult mind control' of the Church drops down to a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Also you: "If the Church stopped exercising 'cult mind control' members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Saying that the Church employees relatively little “cult mind control” (i.e. 3 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 10) is not characterizing the Church as a cult.

According to Roger, the Church "exercis{es} 'cult mind control'" over its members to such a vast extent that if it stopped doing so, the Church "would cease to exist."

Also according to Roger: The Church's supposed "cult mind control" over its members is "relatively little."

What a model of clarity this is.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You suggesting otherwise indicates an inability on your part to have an honest conversation about this. The conversation isn’t about whether or not the Church is a “cult.”

Says the guy who has invoked the self-designated "cult expert" Steve Hassan.

Says the guy who has invoked Abu Ghraib as a point of comparison to the Church's missionary program.

Says the guy who has declared that the Church "exercis{es} 'cult mind control'" over its members to such a vast extent that if it stopped doing so, the Church "would cease to exist."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The conversation is about what Reynolds meant when he said he didn’t want to manipulate his kids.

This from the guy who introduced all the "cult" stuff, and has explicitly declared that the Church "exercis{es} 'cult mind control'" over its members to such a vast extent that if it stopped doing so, the Church "would cease to exist," 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10, 2024 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It would be unlawful for the Church to restrain them.  If missionaries were not free to leave, the Church would be getting sued all over the place for instances where missionaries were not allowed to leave.

I question that.

Your reasoning is that because the missionary handbook doesn't explicitly say that missionaries are free to quit, missionaries are not free to quit?

That is dumb.

Your reasoning is that because the missionary handbook doesn't explicitly instruct missionaries how to quit, missionaries are not free to quit?

That is dumb.

Oh, brother.

You know, it kinda does mean that.

You're just making this up as you go along.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is this kind of restraining I guess:

https://wheatandtares.org/2023/08/30/passport-control-missions/#:~:text=There is common practice in,the country like volunteering adults.

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.

Abu Ghraib is representative of the totality of the U.S. Army, its "cult mind control" techniques, and the generalized and common lives and experiences and actions of U.S. servicemembers.

I never said nor implied that. Your inability to have an honest conversation about this is fascinating.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Accidental Terrorist is representative of the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its "cult mind control" techniques, and the generalized and common lives and experiences and actions of Latter-day Saint missionaries. 

I never said nor implied that. Your inability to have an honest conversation about this is fascinating.