DiscussMormonism.com

As I mentioned on another thread, I am quite interested in how Drs. Bromley and Mauss perceived Juliann's application of the Bromley model was consistent with their writings when she completely omitted a crucial component - that the new religious movement is viewed as subversive by the larger society, and that is the reason the oppositional group is formed (versus disgruntled former members forming a group themselves). Juliann said if I could think of a third party we both could trust she would send the emails to that person to share with me.

Bryan Inks has volunteered to be that person. He is neutral and uninvolved in the conversation, and rarely posts either here or on FAIR. Juliann, if Bryan can serve this purpose, just alert us on MAD. I'll keep an eye out for the alert. If not, perhaps you can suggest someone to serve as third party.

Wait a minute. Am I to understand that Juliann has an email exchange between herself and Bromley/Mauss, and she wants to make claims about their content but she doesn't want to share the emails openly?

Kevin, that is my understanding. The only reason I am pursuing it is due to my curiosity about how they reconciled using their model in a different model that ignored the "subversive" element.

Juliann,

I am registered on MAD but cannot access it due to having thrown away my password. I will see if The Dude will PM you for me, since he's on both boards.

my prediction:

Mauss and whoever, if they agree, won't be clear about who is right or wrong in this case because they don't have anything to gain one way or another. They'll try to be diplomatic and see it from both perspectives. If the dispute were from two published social theorists then making specifics and corrections clear would be more likely. But in this case, their professional credibility or image is not really at stake by making their views on the matter crystal clear, and a heated layman (I don't think they consider pundit status equal to a graduate degree) apologist/critic encounter where they clearly take a side poses at least some risk. On the one hand, they won't want to take the chance at being quoted in the clear for promoting a-vicious-offense-is-the-best-defense apologetics, and on the other, they won't want to risk being distorted by critics to look anti-Mormon.

I may be wrong, but I'd like to post this officially as my prediction.

Yes, I suspect the emails will provide limited information. What I'd like to see is an explanation of how one portion of a researched model can be removed without impacting the application of that model. But I'd still like to hear their explanations. (trusting Juliann at her word that they condoned her application, of course)

What's the big secret here? She and the MAD mods demanded that I provided not only the emails they sent me, but also the emails I sent them. But Juliann gets to beat about the bush "telling stories about emails." Juliann's head was so big she couldn't get around the fact that nothing was about her, even though she tried to make it that way.

My emails with them occured six months ago and I haven't spoken with them since. I had a feeling Juliann might wait until the storm blew over to resurrect this subject again.

In any event, I gotta thank Juliann for bringing up this sociological factor last year. Too bad for her I got interested and read further. She is too dense to see that it will be a bigger weapon for anti-Mormons than for Mormons. So ex-Mormons are simply following a role, huh Juliann? OK, well according to sociologists, so are the converts!

That means there is no spirit influencing you. That means nothing comes to "get" the investigator when they pray. It simply means a convert is followng a natural sociological model whereby they seek acceptance into a particular group. In other words, all teh stuff a missionary tells an investigator is bunk. PEple join the Church not because of truth, not because of spirit feelings, etc. They join for the same reason people join any religious faith. They are just following a role that is automatic once all the environmental factors are set, and this is why missionary discussions can only take place in certain circumstances. The Church has to make sure they control the environment. I covered all this here:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=259

And here:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253

dartagnan wrote:In any event, I gotta thank Juliann for bringing up this sociological factor last year. Too bad for her I got interested and read further. She is too dense to see that it will be a bigger weapon for anti-Mormons than for Mormons.

I had the same experience when exploring deconstruction, which has been used as an apologetic defense by Louis Midgley and David Bohn. Derrida would have choked on his cheerios if he saw how the apologists were twisting his work. They have essentially used it to privilege their own perspective, which is exactly the kind of "will to power" that deconstruction is meant to deconstruct.

I had the same experience when exploring deconstruction, which has been used as an apologetic defense by Louis Midgley and David Bohn. Derrida would have choked on his cheerios if he saw how the apologists were twisting his work. They have essentially used it to privilege their own perspective, which is exactly the kind of "will to power" that deconstruction is meant to deconstruct.

A young man came into my office, heartbroken, for he had subverted the simple teachings of Christ during his study time with the scriptures. I was aghast at the blaspheme that issued forth from his lips that afternoon. But I stayed my hand from the square and listened to his trials. I could not hold back, however, as he began to re-read the story of the widow's mite - and many of you know how I feel about widows - from the margins of holy writ. He explained that the possibility of God's Justice lay in Judas's betrayal. That the Widow giving freely back to the Lord his mite links to Jesus submitting to Judas and restoring his ear, what was rightfully Judas's. That as the widow sealed her demise by sacraficing the token of her last meal, Jesus gave up his life. He concluded that as Judas went through with his treachery, God the Father went through with allowing the mite to be taken from the widow - the glory being his forever. That betrayal is the trace of justice and Judas and the Father are oppositions, yet each the other only deferred.

I stood my height and rebuked the young man, charging him with blaspheme and finding him guilty of the metaphysics of presence. He repented that day and I sent him away with a childrens' edition of the scriptures. Away from the meeting house I also consult the childrens' edition regularily as I rejoice in the simplicity therin.

Oh how I wish I had worked over your texts, Brother Tommy, instead of Derrida's in my dissertation!

Had I chosen that path perhaps now I would be married to a firm and staunch priesthood holder and rejoining you at the table of fellowship rejoicing in the happiness I once knew, instead of sitting here in the heart of the heart of Babylon (the Special Collections department of the New York Public Library) reading through diaries of officers stationed at Camp Floyd, Utah in 1859.

Dear Sister Blixa,

I am sympathetic to your situation. Know this, the Lord has put you where you are for a reason, and perhaps it is his will that your testimony light the minds of those around you who stumble in darkness. With your example, perhaps your husband will come to know the true and everlasting gospel. And if not, just remember that the Lord will see your heart and your sacrafice, and in the eternities a righteous man will be appointed unto you.