Article Re Dan Reynolds

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

From the link:

Quote

There is common practice in the Church for the Mission President to gather and retain the passports of the missionaries. This prevents them from losing their passports, like dumb kids, but it also prevents them from leaving the country like volunteering adults.

First, the author concedes that this "common practice" is intended to avoid the loss of passports.  She also offers no evidence that this practice is intended for this alternative purpose ("it also prevents them from leaving the country").

Second, I have never seen any evidence elsewhere that this "common practice" is intended to "prevent" missionaries from leaving the mission field.  

Third, I have never heard of a missionary being "restrained" (your word) from getting his passport back and leaving the mission field.

Fourth, if a mission president were to refuse to return a missionary's passport, I would find that deeply problematic and wrong.  Perhaps even criminal.  I think neither the Church nor its agents (mission presidents) would be authorized under the law to do this.

Fifth, I really doubt the Church would instruct (or allow) a mission president to behave this way.  The author goes on to quote the Mission President handbook regarding "tactics to discourage missionaries from choosing to leave."  None of these quotes include an instruction to mission presidents to withhold passports.

Sixth, none of the quotes from the MP handbook speak of any physical or coercive efforts to prevent a missionary from going home. Instead, the quotes involve stuff like "You can identify and resolve many of these concerns...," "To help a struggling missionary, you may invite him or her to visit the mission home...," "Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary...," and, perhaps most potently, "Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers."

For me, the author's suggestion that missionary service amounts to "human trafficking" is risible, hyperbolic and absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 10 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

2 hours 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? 

I'm not too interested in kicking up another stink about trans issues or gender ideology right now.  My main point is one person's indoctrination is another person's sound parenting.   And using words like "cult" and "indoctrination" does little beyond muddy the waters.

Right now we're arguing about how we get our kids ready to serve missions.  Analytics is calling foul, equating a lack of transparency with indoctrination.  And while I don't think folks have specifically used the term "bad", it seems obvious by the calling-foul that stuff which could be called mind-control cult indoctrination would be considered "bad".

I'm trying to illustrate that the last bunch of cultural change and educational efforts to get our kids up and running on current gender ideology, if we're accepting Analytics' definitions, must also be considered mind-control cult indoctrination.  When folks engaged in this behavior push their pre-teens to chose pronouns, how many of them present them with material saying they're free to just ignore such mindsets and theories about gender?

Edited July 10 by LoudmouthMormon

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sixth, none of the quotes from the MP handbook speak of any physical or coercive efforts to prevent a missionary from going home. Instead, the quotes involve stuff like "You can identify and resolve many of these concerns...," "To help a struggling missionary, you may invite him or her to visit the mission home...," "Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary...," and, perhaps most potently, "Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers."

There was a guy on my mission who packed up all his junk in one of those little u-haul trucks, called our mission president around midnight one night and threatened to go home.

My president's response: It's not a prison Elder. Have a wonderful life.

As far as "coercive efforts" go, that seems pretty tame to me.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Actually, here is what really happened: you started a thread about why somebody left Mormonism, and you began analyzing what the article said, sentence by sentence. One of the specific things you wanted to talk about is Reynold’s thoughts on manipulation. 

Since you decided that this was an issue to be discussed here and you said that you were wondering what he thought, I decided to share my opinions on your topic. I brought up Hassan because he does in fact talk in detail about the difference between positive influence and manipulative influence. 

Freedom of mind is a real thing, and as far as I can tell, Reynolds would agree with me on this.

So far we’ve only focussed on how organizations can control behavior. As another essential piece to this,  consider how organizations control information. Should the Church fully disclose to investigators what they are considering getting in to? I think from a moral perspective, full disclosure is necessary, and asking somebody to get baptized without providing full disclosure is manipulative.

Are the following things all disclosed to investigators before baptism?

• Joseph Smith’s polygamy and all of the crazy details in Section 132
• The nature and contents of the covenants they’ll be asked to make in the temple
• The fact that if they continue down the path, they’ll be required to wear garments
• The fact that for many people, garments aren’t that comfortable
• That on an annual basis, you will be expected to have a private interview with a man who will want to ask you about what underwear you wear
• The heartache that happens when families are separated on the day people get married in the temple
• The fact that the Church declines to follow best practices for financial transparency

I could go on, but I’ll stop there. These things generally aren’t disclosed to people before they get baptized. This might be justified with a three-word phrase like “line upon line,” “step by step”, or “milk before meat.” But from an outsider perspective, deliberately withholding important information in order to condition them to join your organization is manipulative. I think this is the kind of thing Reynolds was talking about, and I think you can raise a child to have morals without being manipulative in this way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

That is false--I never compared Abu Ghraib to the Church’s missionary program. Rather, I used it as an example of the type of manipulation I’m talking about taking place in the military. The point is simple--manipulation is real, admitted expert witnesses have testified about it, and this type of manipulation does in fact take place in the military. That’s the whole point, and I wouldn’t have thought about raising this in a million years if you weren’t repeatedly talking about admitted expert witness testimony and making the weird claim that the military doesn’t manipulate people.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And now you are talking about "common courtesy."

If you don’t want to have uncomfortable conversations, don’t start them.

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

There was a guy on my mission who packed up all his junk in one of those little u-haul trucks, called our mission president around midnight one night and threatened to go home.

My president's response: It's not a prison Elder. Have a wonderful life.

As far as "coercive efforts" go, that seems pretty tame to me.

 

That’s great, but according to the Mission President Handbook, your mission president should have done the following 21 things before telling him to have a wonderful life:

[1] seek counsel from the Area Presidency and discuss the situation with your Missionary Department In-Field Services representative. To help a struggling missionary, **[2]**you may invite him or her to visit the mission home, or **[3]**you may arrange for a visit to the home of a priesthood leader in the area where the missionary is serv- ing. The atmosphere there, plus **[4]**a personal interview and **[5]**a priesthood blessing, often can re- store sagging spirits. **[6]**Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary.

**[7]**Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers.

Ask the missionary to talk with **[8]**his or her parents, **[9]**bishop, or **[10]**stake president. You should learn what they say so that you can build on it. **[11]**If the home priesthood leaders know that the family wants the missionary to continue serving, make sure the missionary calls home. Even if the parents were not originally in favor of the mission, they may want their missionary to finish what he or she has started. Parents or priesthood leaders may recommend other people who can help, **[12]**such as a friend (including a girlfriend if she will be supportive), **[13]**a youth leader, a **[14]**seminary teacher, or a **[15]**returned missionary.

**[16]**Some struggling missionaries respond well to a “test period.” You might give a missionary **[17]**an assignment suited to his or her needs. Then you could say, “Try it for three months. If you feel the same way, we’ll call the Area Presidency (or Church headquarters) about your request.” **[18]**You might also ask the missionary to stay at least until the next transfer so that the work will not be disrupted and his or her companion will not need to be transferred.

**[19]**Explain that if the missionary returns home at his or her own insistence, the missionary and the family are to reimburse the Church for the cost of the return trip home.

If after **[20]**counseling with the Area Presidency, all efforts fail and a missionary insists on going home, **[21]**ask your Missionary Department In-Field Services representative for further instructions. You should not feel personally responsible when a missionary goes home early after you have done all you can.

 

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

Edited July 10 by Analytics

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

There was a guy on my mission who packed up all his junk in one of those little u-haul trucks, called our mission president around midnight one night and threatened to go home.

My president's response: It's not a prison Elder. Have a wonderful life.

As far as "coercive efforts" go, that seems pretty tame to me.

 

Things have changed greatly with more accessible transportation and credit cards being accepted pretty much everywhere I am guessing these days as well as the most dramatic changes of cell phones.  Though there are still places where cell phones won’t connect you with home, you need satellite phones iirc (one place my nephew went to in the Marshall Islands about 6 years ago, they were stuck at what was supposed to be a day’s teaching for a couple of weeks, maybe a month due to a storm damaging a boat and another boat not being able to get out there until the MP was able to come pick them up himself).  When phone calls required a major investment and plane tickets a bigger out of pocket investment if one chose to just ‘run away’, I can imagine quite a few missionaries felt trapped where they were and unable to get home.  So older stories of elders seeing themselves as restricted from leaving, I take as more likely than current ones where missionaries travel around with credit cards and cell phones, can probably get an Uber or bus to the airport, buy a ticket and be home in a day or so even if in a little town across the world.  The passport thing, being too scared or shamed to ask for it…yeah, I can see that as someone who failed a class because I couldn’t visualize myself going and asking for help or even withdrawing from the class (didn’t know how and didn’t know how to find out without putting myself in the spotlight…I was 18 at that time).  Sometimes it isn’t being weak or shy, it’s difficulty communicating that leads to freezing or brain fog or something else that can incapacitate a person if stressed.  Those who haven’t experienced it probably find it hard to imagine how it could happen.  I experienced it and still don’t get it.  The brain can be its own worst enemy.

Those issues though are not on the Church, imo, and that should be recognized in any such stories where a person expresses feeling pressure….was that pressure created externally or internally?  

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

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. 

What I'm getting from this is that if you can prove it unequivocally then it's not manipulative to teach it to your children, but But if you can't then it's manipulative to teach it to your children.  There are some pretty obvious flaws to that definition though so maybe I'm not understanding your right. Let's ask it another way because maybe I'll understand your point better from a different perspective. 

If God really truly did kill a sea turtle every time someone used a plastic straw, would teaching that to your children still be manipulative?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

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

Do you think this is good or bad? 

The answer, I suppose, depends on whether the parent thinks that gender dysphoria is a good or desirable thing.  It appears that the vast majority of instances of gender dysphoria in children resolve prior to adulthood (see also here: "Eleven studies have been conducted looking at whether gender dysphoria persists throughout childhood. On average 80% of children change their minds and do not continue into adulthood as transgender.")

I have a friend whose son has been going through this.  She did not "push" him into it, but she had been going along with his requests since his announcement (he wants to go by a girl's name, he wants his immediate family to refer to him using "she/her" pronouns).  More recently, however, he has started to talk about dressing like a girl, and has dropped some hints about medical/surgical intervention. 

My friend has been troubled by this, as she feels that because she has been "going along" with his dysphoria in small ways (girl name, pronouns), she now lacks a articulable, rational basis to disagree with him wearing girl's clothes to school, and perhaps even lacks grounds to disagree with him getting medical/surgical intervention.  She feels like she is in a real quandary.  If she refuses his requests, she may be seen as reversing her "support" and abdicating her role as "ally" (these are the terms bandied about these days).  And with that comes potential damage to her relationship with her son (accusations of "bigotry" for not supporting him, perhaps even threats of suicide for her impeding his ability to live as his "authentic self").  Alternatively, if she goes along with his requests, then she will be more actively supporting and reinforcing (and, therefore, ratifying / confirming / celebrating) him dressing like a girl, which may end up being a further step toward medical/surgical intervention, perhaps up to and including procedures which would her son irreversibly sterile, without important body parts, and facing a lifetime of endless medical care associated with "gender transition" procedures.

For myself, I think the line of reasoning that calls for, or even requires, accommodation and ratification of gender dysphoria, particularly in children, is not the way to go.  Statistically speaking, this does seem to be a "phase" for most of those who experience it.  For those who do not resolve the dysphoria, they can make these important decisions when they reach adulthood.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, here is what really happened: you started a thread about why somebody left Mormonism, and you began analyzing what the article said, sentence by sentence. One of the specific things you wanted to talk about is Reynold’s thoughts on manipulation. 

Since you decided that this was an issue to be discussed here and you said that you were wondering what he thought, I decided to share my opinions on your topic.

Which "opinions" included invoking Abu Ghraib as a comparative element relating to the Church's missionary program.

44 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you don’t want to have uncomfortable conversations, don’t start them.

You may be correct.  I started the thread, and so should have expected beyond-the-pale-of-civil-discourse comments from folks such as yourself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That’s great, but according to the Mission President Handbook, your mission president should have done the following 21 things before telling him to have a wonderful life:

Well, he was released early from being a mission president...to serve in the Second Quorum of the Seventy, so I recon he was doing okay.

He told us that his measure of success as a leader would be where the missionaries who served under him ended up in 30 years. I really felt he took that seriously and was willing to do whatever he thought was best for the individuals.

I know there are some missionaries who struggle for a period and just need some encouragement, but I also know there are missionaries that really should go home. And I think the Church (and it's members) have become a lot more accepting of that fact.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours 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'm not sure what I've said for you to imply something like this (or even believe it's an acceptable example to use) but it doesn't feel like a good-faith discussion anymore. 

I'm assuming you would find it completely unacceptable if a member tried to make a point by implying that ex-mormons would rather see their kids dead than have them disagree with their beliefs.  

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

but it doesn't feel like a good-faith discussion anymore. 

I admire you for trying to hang there giving him the benefit of the doubt for as long as you did. 

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which "opinions" included invoking Abu Ghraib as a comparative element relating to the Church's missionary program.

I never invoked Abu Grahib as a comparative element relating to the missionary program. Rather, you decided to go off on a couple of tangents:

1. Hassan hasn’t (according to you) had expert testimony admitted in a court, and therefore doesn’t know what he’s talking about
2. The military controls people behavior but isn’t guilty of cult mind control, therefore the BITE model is invalid

You hammered on both of those points more than once. I provided an example addressing the issue you brought up using a standard of expertise that you insisted we use: according to expert testimony that has been admitted in court, extreme manipulation has in fact taken place in the military. Again, psychological manipulation in the military is a topic you brought up, not me. I don’t know what this has to do with the missionary program--psychological manipulation in the military is a topic you brought up, not me.

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what I've said for you to imply something like this (or even believe it's an acceptable example to use) but it doesn't feel like a good-faith discussion anymore. 

I'm assuming you would find it completely unacceptable if a member tried to make a point by implying that ex-mormons would rather see their kids dead than have them disagree with their beliefs.  

 

As I’m sure you are aware, 50 years ago or so, the infamous “pine box” was a favorite metaphor among certain apostles and zealous members who tried to showcase how seriously they took purity. The Church has evolved since then, and I don’t think this viewpoint is very popular anymore. I don’t know you that well, but I’d be shocked if you personally believed this way.

I used this as an example of something that would clearly be a type of manipulation that you and I both would find unacceptable.  I didn’t mean to imply that this represented your personal views, and I should have said made that more clear.

 

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I admire you for trying to hang there giving him the benefit of the doubt for as long as you did. 

I genuinely like Analytics and normally enjoy discussing things with him. And I sometimes say dumb stuff too so I’m not giving him any more grace than I need for myself. 😊

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the link:

First, the author concedes that this "common practice" is intended to avoid the loss of passports.  She also offers no evidence that this practice is intended for this alternative purpose ("it also prevents them from leaving the country").

Second, I have never seen any evidence elsewhere that this "common practice" is intended to "prevent" missionaries from leaving the mission field.  

Third, I have never heard of a missionary being "restrained" (your word) from getting his passport back and leaving the mission field.

Fourth, if a mission president were to refuse to return a missionary's passport, I would find that deeply problematic and wrong.  Perhaps even criminal.  I think neither the Church nor its agents (mission presidents) would be authorized under the law to do this.

Fifth, I really doubt the Church would instruct (or allow) a mission president to behave this way.  The author goes on to quote the Mission President handbook regarding "tactics to discourage missionaries from choosing to leave."  None of these quotes include an instruction to mission presidents to withhold passports.

Sixth, none of the quotes from the MP handbook speak of any physical or coercive efforts to prevent a missionary from going home. Instead, the quotes involve stuff like "You can identify and resolve many of these concerns...," "To help a struggling missionary, you may invite him or her to visit the mission home...," "Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary...," and, perhaps most potently, "Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers."

For me, the author's suggestion that missionary service amounts to "human trafficking" is risible, hyperbolic and absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have known of some missionaries who were having a hard time on their mission and wanted to go home so they were transferred to their home to finish their mission time as a service missionary while living in their home with their parents.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the link:

First, the author concedes that this "common practice" is intended to avoid the loss of passports.  She also offers no evidence that this practice is intended for this alternative purpose ("it also prevents them from leaving the country").

Second, I have never seen any evidence elsewhere that this "common practice" is intended to "prevent" missionaries from leaving the mission field.  

Third, I have never heard of a missionary being "restrained" (your word) from getting his passport back and leaving the mission field.

Fourth, if a mission president were to refuse to return a missionary's passport, I would find that deeply problematic and wrong.  Perhaps even criminal.  I think neither the Church nor its agents (mission presidents) would be authorized under the law to do this.

Fifth, I really doubt the Church would instruct (or allow) a mission president to behave this way.  The author goes on to quote the Mission President handbook regarding "tactics to discourage missionaries from choosing to leave."  None of these quotes include an instruction to mission presidents to withhold passports.

Sixth, none of the quotes from the MP handbook speak of any physical or coercive efforts to prevent a missionary from going home. Instead, the quotes involve stuff like "You can identify and resolve many of these concerns...," "To help a struggling missionary, you may invite him or her to visit the mission home...," "Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary...," and, perhaps most potently, "Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers."

For me, the author's suggestion that missionary service amounts to "human trafficking" is risible, hyperbolic and absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

I mentioned a "kind of restraining".

I did read a story long ago of someone who did want to return home and said something to the affect that his passport was locked up or something. But I can't provide a reference right away. 

But you're correct I'd vouch to say that it probably wouldn't happen or very rare if so. I did just read something to the affect a missionary was too far away from where their passport was locked up and needed it but couldn't without a big hassle I'm guessing. So it could deter a missionary from jumping ship quick. 

Edited July 11 by Tacenda

[Stormin' Mormon]

There's always the opposite of "you can't fire me, I quit" as a method for a reluctant missionary to be sent home. No need to recover a confiscated passport or to run away from an over-zealous companion or even to use the missionary's own resources to fund the escape.

A missionary could refuse to obey mission rules or even more simply, just refuse to do the work. Mission leaders can't corporally punish ne'er-do-wells. They can't be put under house arrest. There are no wages to be garnished. A threat to send a missionary home early may have the power to impose conformity on a kid who wants to stay. But for one who wants to go, the fear of any social stigma that might come with an early departure has already been discarded; the threatened punishment is actually the desired consequence!

[let’s roll]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

That’s great, but according to the Mission President Handbook, your mission president should have done the following 21 things before telling him to have a wonderful life:

[1] seek counsel from the Area Presidency and discuss the situation with your Missionary Department In-Field Services representative. To help a struggling missionary, **[2]**you may invite him or her to visit the mission home, or **[3]**you may arrange for a visit to the home of a priesthood leader in the area where the missionary is serv- ing. The atmosphere there, plus **[4]**a personal interview and **[5]**a priesthood blessing, often can re- store sagging spirits. **[6]**Your wife can often have an influence in strengthening a missionary.

**[7]**Help the missionary understand that deciding to return home is a very serious matter but that the final decision is his or hers.

Ask the missionary to talk with **[8]**his or her parents, **[9]**bishop, or **[10]**stake president. You should learn what they say so that you can build on it. **[11]**If the home priesthood leaders know that the family wants the missionary to continue serving, make sure the missionary calls home. Even if the parents were not originally in favor of the mission, they may want their missionary to finish what he or she has started. Parents or priesthood leaders may recommend other people who can help, **[12]**such as a friend (including a girlfriend if she will be supportive), **[13]**a youth leader, a **[14]**seminary teacher, or a **[15]**returned missionary.

**[16]**Some struggling missionaries respond well to a “test period.” You might give a missionary **[17]**an assignment suited to his or her needs. Then you could say, “Try it for three months. If you feel the same way, we’ll call the Area Presidency (or Church headquarters) about your request.” **[18]**You might also ask the missionary to stay at least until the next transfer so that the work will not be disrupted and his or her companion will not need to be transferred.

**[19]**Explain that if the missionary returns home at his or her own insistence, the missionary and the family are to reimburse the Church for the cost of the return trip home.

If after **[20]**counseling with the Area Presidency, all efforts fail and a missionary insists on going home, **[21]**ask your Missionary Department In-Field Services representative for further instructions. You should not feel personally responsible when a missionary goes home early after you have done all you can.

 

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

Do you have a problem with any of these steps, or with the fact the mental health professionals are made available to missionaries, or the fact that students at the Y can see a mental health professional without any cost to the student up to seven times?  
 

My daughter flew across the country to visit us about six months after she got married and announced she wanted to get a divorce.  My response was that if she really wanted a divorce she should get one.  We loved her for three days, let her vent, gave her some suggestions, and she went home committed to trying to work things out.

Edited July 11 by let’s roll

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I mentioned a "kind of restraining".

I did read a story long ago of someone who did want to return home and said something to the affect that his passport was locked up or something. But I can't provide a reference right away. 

But you're correct I'd vouch to say that it probably wouldn't happen or very rare if so. I did just read something to the affect a missionary was too far away from where their passport was locked up and needed it but couldn't without a big hassle I'm guessing. So it could deter a missionary from jumping ship quick. 

The passport thing was a problem in 2020 when they were trying to get missionaries out of various countries and headed home.  It was talked about quite a bit on the missionary mommas group as it was happening.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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.

You’ve seen this or you saw it on the news once.

Congrats on discovering theybies I guess.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm not too interested in kicking up another stink about trans issues or gender ideology right now.

I don’t believe you.

[ttribe]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

You're a good soldier, Spencer. You always have been. I suspect that will never change.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You're a good soldier, Spencer. You always have been. I suspect that will never change.

I accept your (possibly backhanded) compliment.  I hope I never turn away from the experiences I have had and studied observations and conclusions I have reached.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Do you have a problem with any of these steps, or with the fact the mental health professionals are made available to missionaries, or the fact that students at the Y can see a mental health professional without any cost to the student up to seven times?  
 

My daughter flew across the country to visit us about six months after she got married and announced she wanted to get a divorce.  My response was that if she really wanted a divorce she should get one.  We loved her for three days, let her vent, gave her some suggestions, and she went home committed to trying to work things out.

Responding to your points in reverse order, I think it is great that you were able to talk to your daughter and she is working things out, and I think it is great that BYU students can see mental health professionals.

On your first question, I don’t “have a problem” per se with what mission presidents are instructed to do. I know they are trying to do what is best. However, what they are instructed to do is another brick in the wall that supports my overall point that the missionary program is extremely manipulative.

Based on Smac97’s recommendation, last night I listened to a podcast where Steven Hassan interviewed John Dehlin for Hassan’s podcast. It’s about the second time I’ve listened to a Dehlin podcast, and the first time I’ve interacted with Hassan since I introduced him to Mormonism 20+ years ago. Something John and Steven both said was that they had no problem with the doctrine and practice of Mormonism or of any other religion; their problem is with using coercive manipulation tactics (i.e. what Steven unfortunately calls “cult mind control”) to apply undue psychological pressure to get people to join and stick with a program.

What would the process look like without manipulation? It would be something like this:

“If a missionary is determined to leave, tell him that missionary work isn’t for everyone and he is free to leave. However, make him the following offer: to ensure you make the best decision for yourself without undue influence from others, we will pay for you to see the counselor of your choice. The counselor can be anybody you choose, including people inside and outside the Church. You can meet with the counselor for as long or as little as you choose, and you can finalize your decision about whether to stay or go at any time. Of course you are also free to talk to me, your stake president, your bishop, and your parents about this decision if you want. Here is your passport. Would you like to talk to somebody about this, or should we start assisting you with travel arrangements?"

 

Edited July 11 by Analytics