BEASTIE: Please boycott the pundits forum!

Post by **_Dr. Shades** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:06 pm

Hey Beastie:

Since many of our sock puppets were banned from MA&D, the fact that they moved the thread to the pundits forum means we can no longer read what you have to say to Juliann. I strongly believe that this counts as a circumvention of what Mister Scratch had in mind by encouraging you to go back there.

In other words, any and all effort you put into dialoguing over there is now going to waste, since anyone who might agree with you cannot read anything you say. MA&D is effectively putting you into quarrantine.

Here's my vehement request: Please require them to restore your thread back to the LDS Dialogue and Discussion Forum so that everyone can read and benefit from your discussion, not merely Juliann and her cheerleaders, and if they don't, please boycott the thread 'till they do.

Is that too much to ask? (I'd make the request myself, but my sock puppet was banned so I can't anymore.)

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:10 pm

Sure, I'll ask. I'm not sure how much more life there is to the thread, however, as the impasse is pretty insurmountable. We're just beginning to repeat ourselves.

Post by **_Who Knows** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:17 pm

Can you at least post the more relevant points here (for those who don't have a MAD account)?

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:34 pm

Sure, but I better paraphrase any post other than my own, unless I want to give them an excuse to boot me. Like I said, the thread seems to be in its death throes. Juliann is still insisting that she's moved "beyond Bromley", ignoring that most of the scholars she's cited are using the Bromley model. She is now repeating her strawman argument that supposedly I said there could NOT be a Mormon apostate today, which is completely fallacious, and acting as if Mauss stating that there can be apostates, just very rare is some victory (ignoring the fact that I have cited those same passages from Mauss and referred to his examples). I have tried to get her to admit a couple of her more egregious misstatements of my position, but she just ignores me. I just posted one of scratch's questions asking how she has ascertained that the majority of exmormons just shrug and move on. I tried to get her to explain why she said Roger Loomis' account is a good example of an apostate narrative, but she now says it's not even a narrative, she's not interested in debating old threads, and she was really just using it as an example of how exmo narratives change over time. She ignored my question regarding how she knows Roger's statements have changed.

Really, guys, don't be upset about missing it. You've seen all the meat. I seriously doubt that there will be much more of substance, particularly now since Juliann's "theory" is as basic and obvious as people putting their own "spins" on their histories, blah blah blah. Yeah, as if that would be shocking enough to create numerous threads about.

The funniest thing that happened today was on the main forum, where she labeled dart's email story an "atrocity narrative". She really is oblivious. She continues using the very terminology that the Bromley model utilizes in completely inappropriate ways.

Post by **_Who Knows** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:40 pm

Could you give us Juliann's stance? I guess I'm confused. Who exactly is Juliann labeling as an apostate? What are their characteristics? Has she given specific names?

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:41 pm

beastie wrote:Really, guys, don't be upset about missing it. You've seen all the meat. I seriously doubt that there will be much more of substance, particularly now since Juliann's "theory" is as basic and obvious as people putting their own "spins" on their histories, blah blah blah. Yeah, as if that would be shocking enough to create numerous threads about.

I think it has run its course too. If the subject gets revived again it will probably be in Discussions.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:45 pm

Hey, I'm confused too. I even told her in my last post I don't really understand how she defines an apostate anymore. I think the problem is that the only definition she has comes from the Bromley model, and now she doesn't want to use it. The examples she's given are Bob McCue and Steven Benson. I invited her in the past to analyze their narratives for the necessary components, but that was one of the many, many requests I made of her that she just ignored. She also stated on the thread that I was a 'perfect example' of an apostate, but she won't defend that, either.

It is frustrating debating someone who ignores most of your points and questions, and simply creates a strawman to beat up. "hey, beastie said there it's not possible to have a modern Mormon apostate, punch punch".

This thread has reminded me very clearly why I stopped posting there in the first place. Argh.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:33 am

Who Knows wrote:Could you give us Juliann's stance? I guess I'm confused. Who exactly is Juliann labeling as an apostate? What are their characteristics? Has she given specific names?

In a nutshell, her stance is this: She wants to be able to label anyone an "apostate" that she feels like. Of course, things get pretty confusing as she marches out her scholarly sources, which, incidentally, don't support hardly anything she says. This (from what I can tell) is basically how her argument breaks down:

1. Apostates (esp. Mormon apostates) exist.
2. Apostates rely upon constructed narratives, or "atrocity tales," which can be analyzed.
3. RfM is an "apostate organization," although the majority of posters on RfM are not apostates.
4. Very, very few people are apostates.
5. RfM contains a number of "atrocity tales."

That's pretty much it, I think. Make of that what you may.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:36 am

Hello beastie,

Just wanted to put in my brief 2 cents here. I think you should participate in the Pundits thread so long as you feel it productive and of interest to you. Do what is in you to do and go with that.

Jersey Girl

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:54 am

Thanks, Jersey Girl - I really do think its productiveness is over. I just told Juliann I was confused about her definition of apostate since she is supposedly not relying on the Bromley model, and she simply referred me to the definitions she included in her original post. Those citations that specifically address the definition are straight from the Bromley text. So nothing, I mean nothing, I have said to her has made the slightest dent.

And she completely ignored my request for clarification on how she figures that most exmormons leave with hardly a backwards glance.

I doubt I will participate anymore on the pundits forum. It looks like there is a bit more interest in the apostate thread in the regular discussion board.