DiscussMormonism.com

Dan Vogel wrote:Juliann,

Sorry, if I missed some of the nuances of your previous discussions. Here are my reactions to your discussion so far.

juliann wrote:Although anti-Mormons consider it acceptable to talk about members of the church, they have shown outrage when they are put in the same spotlight they feel so entitled to shine on others.

Here you seem to be setting the discussion up to commit the tu quoque ("you too") fallacy. It seems to me that outrage would be a natural response to someone who changes the subject and attacks.

juliann wrote:Whenever these threads have begun they have been immediately hijacked by angry exmos lecturing on their right to do whatever they please without consequence and certainly without analysis.

Here you seem to be setting up a begging-the-question definition that seems to peremptorily label and discredit anyone who objects to your discussion as an "angry exmo".

juliann wrote:The most common tactic for derailment is to insist that there is no difference being made between leave-takers and apostates and then to begin a defense of particular people. If this doesn't stay on topic (and I'm asking the mods to keep it on topic), I'll move it to Pundit.

While there are certainly differences between those who quietly leave and those who decide to voice their differences, what is objectionable is the automatic negative connotation placed on the latter. Certainly, apologists prefer the former to the latter because life is easier without opposition.

juliann wrote:““Apostate”” is now a term used frequently when social scientists anyalyze defectors from new religious movements. The apostate role is understood to be one in which a person exists, either voluntarily or involuntarily, [in?] an unconventional or ““new”” religious group or movement (hereafter NRM) and then becomes an outspoken, visible critic of the latter. Moreover, such persons are understood to represent important resources for any countercult, anti-cult, or oppositional movement seeking to soil the identity of specific religious groups.

Anson Shupe, ““The Role of Apostates in the North American Anticult Movement,”” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 209.

Some of the vocal aren't necessarily trying to "soil the identity of specific religious groups" as they are holding them accountable for the image they project to outsiders. Apostates could just as easily be seen in a positive light of providing the public with a service by supplying information the religious group is not likely to volunteer. Of course, apologists would rather not be contradicted in their views.

However, I'm less concerned with the definition of "apostate" than with the implication that such persons are merely political pawns. This is far from a neutral definition. The definition of "apostate" offered here favors the apologists' point of view. It essentially accepts the believers' construction of what an "apostate" is. I'm sure apostates have a different construction of themselves.

From a logician's point of view, both constructions are irrelevant and dwelling on personal circumstances broaches the fallacies of tu quoque, ad hominem (circumstantial), and poisoning the well. At some point, one has to examine the specifics of the arguments advanced by ones opponents.

juliann wrote:The leave-taker is not at issue here.

Of course, not. But are they "indifferent" or afraid to speak out?

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

Daniel Carson Johnson, ““Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives,”” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 109.

Again, the definition is not neutral, but favors the apologists' agenda. The binary definition reflects the apologists' reality: leave takers are indifferent, quiet, and disenchanted, while apostates are defectors, organized in coalitions, attackers, vituperative, hostile, pursuers, etc. Of course, this is not how "apostates" view themselves, which doesn't seem important here. The definition has an underlying assumption that the apostates are illegitimate and wrong. If one allows the apostates might be right and have legitimate points of view, then the negative connotation of this definition is wrong and illegitimate. But one cannot know that until the specifics of the arguments are considered, which the question-begging definition wants to circumvent or derail.

It's Pat wrote:For the purposes of this thread, internet groups are considered to be "oppositional coalitions" in the same sense that the countermopologists consider mopologists to be a coalition dedicated to the same purpose and working together. We are going to be consistent here. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Illogical argumentation evenly applied is still illogical. Of course, we should also be aware that your definitions are not neutral and work by suppressing other definitions and competing social constructions.

juliann wrote:At the broadest level, the anticult movement in North America can be subdivided into two wings, consisting of secular anticultists and conservative Christian anticultists. While these two wings share certain traits and in the past have occasionally cooperated with each other, the target of much Christian anticultism is a minority religion’’s deviation from traditional doctrine——a concern most secular anticultists do not share.

James R. Lewis, ed., Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2001), 24.

juliann wrote:I will be concentrating on the fascinating similarities between these two groups who have much more in common than either wants to admit. Lewis addresses the secular antis and Cowan (who notes the changes made by the internet that would apply to both groups) addresses the Christian antis.

The fact that you want to dismiss the distinctions and insist on similarities is indication that we are dealing with your construction, rather than reality as it is seem from various points of view. What makes your's more real or accurate?

juliann wrote:There is a divide within the field itself which tends to pair off in the same manner as what it studies. This also shows itself in a divide between psychology based fields and sociology based fields. Liberals who do not use pejoratives and judgements ("cults") are routinely called "cult apologists" by those who need to rely on discredited concepts such as "brainwashing" to privilege mainstream religion. Even the courts have rejected a brainwashing model so other than to acknowledge these scholars, I'm going to use the liberals.

Do you deny that some cults have intentionally used brainwashing techniques? Or are you trying to defend sociological (postmodern) concepts of relative reality?

juliann wrote:More about apostate narratives, mandatory conversion, atrocity and captivity tales later.

Are these things always unfounded? You seem to imply that they are fictions. Are you going to accept apologists' concepts of reality while arbitrarily denying the apostates'?

juliann wrote:The distinction has been made in every thread on this topic, T2. Angry exmos don't like the distinction, however so previous threads have always been diverted into arguments about how many exies aren't apostates as if it was never said. Then they don't have to acknowledge how well the descriptions of apostate behavior fit them.

Is it possible to oppose Mormonism and not be negatively labeled by apologists? And why should apostates care?

juliann wrote:They can't play it both ways. They want to insist that the LDS church is among the most controlling and devious of groups...while claiming that the descriptions of apostates from more radical NRMs don't fit them. They need to get their story straight if they don't want to become part of their own story.

Are you saying the LDS church doesn't try to control the flow of information? To some of those who leave Mormonism, it might seem "devious" (intentional withholding of information) and excessively "controlling" (demanding of time, money, and talent). I don't see Mormonism as devious, but I can understand how some can reasonably come to that conclusion. That is their experience and interpretation. Why dispute it? On the other hand, you seem to imply that apostates are insincere and "devious" in their assessments of their experiences in the church. The better approach would be to speak to the specifics of the arguments and facts, rather than accusing apostates of doing the same thing.

juliann wrote:We have several elements:

1. The similarities of conservative or fundamentalists and secular humanists who go after religions as being "false"...meaning they lay claim to "truth". They can't play it both ways here, either.

This only tells us that you have difficulty making distinctions and perceive all opponents as the same. There may be some secular humanists who say religion is false and make quasi-religious claims themselves, but I'm not sure all secular humanists do. You also seem to place all non-religious critics in the secular humanist category and assume secular humanism has one definition, which includes quasi-religion. Non-religious opponents may only be countering what they see as apologetic abuses and providing information for informed assent.

juliann wrote:2. The stereotypical apostate narrative that angry exies adopt.

There is an assumption that all apostates are angry, or will remain angry as long as they are vocal. When they cease to be angry, they will stop being active. There is also an assumption that the anger is unjustified, or that anger is always inappropriate. It's the "disgruntled former employee" syndrome. With that label, all complaints are waved away. There are no legitimate complaints about Mormonism because they either come from uninformed critics or apostates with axes to grind.

juliann wrote:3. The similarities in the [de] conversion experience.

As above, you seem to broach psychological explanations for your opponents, despite your insinuation that only antis engage in such speculation

juliann wrote:The danger to which both the anticult and the countercult respond is also a function of their respective explanations of cultic behavior. For the anticult, predicated on brainwashing and thought control, the danger is the abrogation of one’’s civil liberties by controversial religious groups. Motivated by a particular psychopathology or a desire for power and money, cult leaders strip their followers of these civil liberties in order to further their own ends. For the countercult, however, non-Christian religious expression——whether characterized as cults or false religions——is a problem of soteriology and represents a major component of the Satanic program to take over the world. If the leaders of these groups do abrogate the civil liberties of their followers, that abrogation is at the behest of the true power behind the throne——Satan.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, Connecticut, 2003), 23-24.

I don't include Mormonism in this category, but it's silly to imply that all cults are harmless. I also strongly object to some Evangelicals who portray Mormonism as Satanic or evil. I prefer to think that most Evangelicals (or at least Christians) assign naturalistic explanations for Joseph Smith.

juliann wrote:The apostate narrative always contains some version of the "I was duped" atrocity/captivity tale. There is an obvious problem with this always present tale that is never explained by those espousing the "I was a dupe" excuse:

I don't know about "always", and I'm not sure this applies well with those born and raised in the church; at least, not with the smaller truly NRMs. Certainly, former Mormons might feel "duped", but nothing like those leaving small communal groups lead by prophet who abused them sexually. In such cases, the duped and atrocity were real, wouldn't you say? You seem to imply that the experiences of apostates are fictions. I don't doubt their sincerity. Their experience of Mormonism was just different than yours, but no less real.

juliann wrote:The problem with these and similar theories is that if cultic influences actually overrode the brain’’s ability to logically process information, then individuals suffering from cultic influences should perform poorly on I.Q. tests or, at the very least, manifest pathological symptoms when they take standardized tests of mental health——and when tested, they do not. If anything, such empirical studies indicate that members of new religious movements are actually smarter and healthier than the average member of mainstream American society (e.g., Sowards et al. 1994).

James R. Lewis, ed., Odd Gods: New Religions & the Cult Controversy (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2001), 31.

There appear to be certain personalities that are susceptible to recruitment by cults, but I.Q. has nothing to do with it. The same holds true with tongue-speaking, susceptibility to hypnoses and hallucinations.

juliann wrote:Atrocity tale is a concept developed by Bromley, Shupe, and Ventimiglia (1979) which refers to events that flagrantly violate some fundamental cultural value and which evoke moral outrage to the extent that social control actions against the group perpretrating the event are warranted. . . Accounts are functional for those proposing them, and they can have a major self-serving element (Scott and Lyman1968). Apostates’’ accounts also may serve the interests of those trying to discredit such groups, and thus such defectors can achieve a position of prominence with organizations opposed to certain religious groups (Richardson, van der Lans, and Derks 1986).

James T. Richardson, ““Apostates, Whistleblowers, Law, and Social Control in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 173.

As a description of certain behaviors, this might hold. But when quoted by an apologist with the intent to discredit, it becomes a logical fallacy and a means of distracting the conversation from what apostates are saying.

When Mormonism was a NRM in the 1840s, some apostatized and told atrocity tales about polygamous and polyandrous marriages Joseph Smith engaged in--all of which he publically denied while at the same time accusing the apostates of various crimes. Who in the church today isn't secretly happy that plural marriage is no longer practiced? They can thank apostates in coalition with the US government for that.

juliann wrote:Dan, I am leaving soon. Don't confuse my commentary on the behaviors I see on this board with the topic....the reactions of the angry exmos to being put under the same spotlight they use is largely irrelvant aside from an interesting observation.

My only question right now: Do you disagree that the "type" that is being described as the apostate exists? I think you will agree that this does exist. At that point, it is really just quibbling about who is what.

So can we agree that the apostate, as described, does exist?

Tal Bachman wrote:I think technically, he didn't rip Juliann a new one - I don't think it counts unless the rippee isn't nuts, and can recognize what has happened, how they are wrong, etc. Otherwise, it's like saying that X ripped his alzeimer's-afflicted grandpa, or his goldfish, or his unborn child a "new one". They're incapable of reason, so all Dan Vogel did was waste his time. Juliann is probably sane, but sane in the way a devout American communist is "sane": able to form coherent sentences, but otherwise entirely immunized psychologically from reason or reality at least on the issue at hand.

Just my two cents,

T.

wenglund wrote:I see that the intellectual Chihauhua's are back to obsessively barking at Juliann's heals--not realizing that Dan's supposed "ripping a new one" was, in many ways, a misunderstanding on his part.

Naturally, the comprehension-challenged here will see it differently, and continue to dog-pile in Juliann's absense.

What would be interesting to learn is what Dan may think of the "reasoning skills" (I use that term liberally you your cases) and posting styles evinced by his supporters on this thread. I think some may be surprised just how low of an opinion he may have of your online behavior, and how reluctent he may be in being apologetically associated with you.

But, bark on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-