Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

[_wenglund]

Wade,

This is incredibly obtuse, even for you.

But, it is evidently stock and trade for you (note again that I used your own wording and reasoning).

Wade states that:

Whether it suggest that their story can't be trusted or not (no reasonable person would believe that it does), this does not invalidated the "experiences and feelings of lots of exMormons because they won't shut up" any more or less than you have invalidated Juliann's experiences and feelings about those ex-Mormons by falsely asserting she "misuses sources" and thus can't be trusted. You want her to shut up about "apostates".

Honestly, what is WRONG with your comprehension? You say it isn't your disability, but good grief, what IS it?

How can anyone read:

Deconversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into another group (whether it be a religion or the internet).

An exie that is aligning with anti-Mormons can't stay with a message of peace and love toward all. So the exit story has to morph into what the group demands. That is why they are so formulaic.

As the person seeks acceptance with a new group, they will have to tailor their exit tale to be acceptable to that group.

and then, with a straight face, claim that no reasonable person could believe these statements mean that this means the story cannot be trusted?????

I can do it by reasonably looking at what the statements actually say, and not irrationally force certain pre-conceptions onto them such as what you have done.

There is something wrong with your reading comprehension.

Again, you are the last person I would consider in a credible position to judge that.

Carefully crafted, morph into, tailor the exit tale, all these words mean that the exiter is making things up in order to be accepted into the new group.

That is a meaning you are irrationally forcing onto those words. I interpret them to mean exactly what they say. Nothing more, nothing less. I can use the exact same words about various books without suggesting they shouldn't be trusted. For example, I may say that Terryl Givens "crafted" a history of Joseph Smith which was "morphed" into its final version from a number of rough drafts, and "tailored" to appeal to those in general with an interest in Joseph Smith, and members of the CoJCoLDS in particular. I can say that and believe Terryl Givens' account of Joseph Smith to be quite trustworthy.

Get a clue.

If I stated that testimonies that LDS give in testimony meeting have been "carefully crafted and morph into a tale that includes a clear revelatory response from God in order to be accepted into the new group", would you really think I wasn't saying "you can't trust their testimonies as reliable?"

No, from that statement alone I wouldn't think you were saying that. But, then, unlike you, I am not attempting to impose a presupposition onto your statement. For me to reasonably come to the conclusion you suppose, you would need to have also stated something along the lines of "you can't trust their testimonies as reliable". Juliann said nothing of the sort--which is why you have been left to desparately and irrationally conjure something sinister in what she actually said.

Again, get a clue.

Now, the second mind blowing statement you make is this:

you have invalidated Juliann's experiences and feelings about those ex-Mormons by falsely asserting she "misuses sources" and thus can't be trusted. You want her to shut up about "apostates".

What are you talking about????

This conversation was NEVER about "Juliann's experiences and feelings about exmormons". Not even SHE would claim that is what it is about. It is about a sociological definition of "apostate" and the model it is embedded within.

Actually, she is letting the social scientist give voice to her beliefs about "apostates", which beliefs have been unavoidably based on her experience and feelings about ex-Mormons. The social scientists haven't specifically mention ex-Mormons. She has. So, it can't help but be about Juliann's esperiences and feelings about ex-Mormons".

Get a clue!

I understand you will never, never, admit that she misused her sources. That is a different disagreement. But the THEORY that she has constructed is that the stories exmormon apostates tell are not reliable and cannot be trusted. That means these same stories have been invalidated from the get-go.

If I had credible evidence from credible sources that she misused her sources (neither of which apply to you or Scratch), then I would have no problem admitting it. And, absent an explicit statement or an unmistakably strong implicit statement from Juliann to the effect that: "the stories exmormon apostates tell are not reliable and cannot be trusted", I have no reason to believe that is her THEORY, as opposed to what she actually has said in what I have read.

And the reason this equates "shut up and sing" is that the ONLY difference between what she now calls a "leave taker" and an apostate is that the "leave taker" shuts up and doesn't talk about it.

If what you said earlier is true (i.e "This conversation was NEVER about 'Juliann's experiences and feelings about exmormons'...It is about a sociological definition of 'apostate' and the model it is embedded within"), then were your thinking above correct, then it would be the social scientist who would be supposedly saying "shut up and sing" rather than Juliann. But, you are wrong on both accounts. The categorizations of "apostate" and "leave taker" are DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. As such, they don't equate with "shut up and sing" regardless of whether you attribute the application to ex-Mormons to Juliann or to the social scientists. Again, get a clue.

(reminder to self: you have only yourself to blame. you have had plenty of experiences in the past with Wade, and you KNOW this is how these conversations always go. Black is white. Up is down. Words no longer mean what they have always meant.)

My sentiment about you exactly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

So this should work fine with Wade.

Conversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into Mormonism. A new convert that is aligning with Mormons can't stay with a message that they believe in the church because it makes them feel good in some fairly ambiguous way, and it is possible that other people in other faiths feel just as good. So the conversion story has to morph into what the group demands, which is that a revelatory experience occurred and that the convert “knows” the church is “true”. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they were willing to abandon family and religious traditions, and turned on their family/friends who objected to their conversion and believed in the former religion. The story must always keep the former group in a “less than” light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

[_beastie]

I shared this citation from a wiki article on the Juliann thread as well, but it is pertinent to this conversation:

Scholars that challenge the validity of critical former members' testimonies as the basis for studying a religious group include David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Brian R. Wilson, and Lonnie Kliever. Bromley and Shupe, who studied the social influences on such testimonies, assert that the apostate in his current role is likely to present a caricature of his former group and that the stories of critical ex-members who defect from groups that are subversive (defined as groups with few allies and many opponents) tend to have the form of "captivity narratives" (i.e. the narratives depict the stay in the group as involuntary). Wilson introduces the atrocity story that is rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion, or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns. Introvigne found in his study of the New Acropolis in France, that public negative testimonies and attitudes were only voiced by a minority of the ex-members, who he describes as becoming "professional enemies" of the group they leave. Kliever, when asked by the Church of Scientology to give his opinion on the reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices, writes that these dedicated opponents present a distorted view of the new religions, and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists. He claims that the reason for the lack of reliability of apostates is due to the traumatic nature of disaffiliation that he compares to a divorce and also due the influence of the anti-cult movement even on those apostates who were not deprogrammed or received exit counseling. Scholars and psychologists who tend to side more with critical former members include David C. Lane, Louis Jolyon West, Margaret Singer, Stephen A. Kent, Benjamin Beith-Hallahmi and Benjamin Zablocki. Zablocki performed an empirical study that showed that the reliability of former members is equal to that of stayers in one particular group. Philip Lucas found the same empirical results.

The crux of the disagreement between these various camps of sociologists has to do with how much credence can be given the apostate's narrative. Is it valid? Is it reliable? Should outsiders listen to it? This summary clearly states the viewpoint of the Bromley camp.

I wonder whether or not these Bromley campers realize that their reasoning can also apply to the testimonies of believers.

[_beastie]

by the way, Wade, I have a master's degree in diagnosing and remediating reading problems, and over twenty years of experience in the field. The program that I and two other teachers run at my school recently won a national award for closing the achievement gap between minorities and impoverished students and the nonminority, nonimpoverished population. So I'm a very reliable person in terms of recognizing reading difficulties.

And when I have students with reading problems who attempt to cover up their problems by pretending they don't exist and pretending OTHERS don't really understand the text, I don't pull any punches in addressing that, either.

[_wenglund]

So this should work fine with Wade.

Conversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into Mormonism. A new convert that is aligning with Mormons can't stay with a message that they believe in the church because it makes them feel good in some fairly ambiguous way, and it is possible that other people in other faiths feel just as good. So the conversion story has to morph into what the group demands, which is that a revelatory experience occurred and that the convert “knows” the church is “true”. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they were willing to abandon family and religious traditions, and turned on their family/friends who objected to their conversion and believed in the former religion. The story must always keep the former group in a “less than” light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

While I think the assertions above can be seriously challenged, it would be irrational of me to suggests that this means that Mormon tesitmonies can't be trusted, and that Beastie wants Mormons to "shut up and sing".

In other words, this doesn't help Beastie in her desparate attempt to put words into Juliann's mouth. She knows she can't find a statment where Juliann explicitely said what Beastie claims (which is odd were it supposedly the essence of Julianns THEORY), nor even a statement that comes close to impling it. But, Beastie has such an aversion to being WRONG that she will go to any extent not to admit it--to the point of stubbornly deluding herself that things have been said that weren't, nor could they reasonably be thought to have been said (such as here with Juliann and me at ZLMB and MTT). So, on it goes...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

by the way, Wade, I have a master's degree in diagnosing and remediating reading problems, and over twenty years of experience in the field. The program that I and two other teachers run at my school recently won a national award for closing the achievement gap between minorities and impoverished students and the nonminority, nonimpoverished population. So I'm a very reliable person in terms of recognizing reading difficulties.

And when I have students with reading problems who attempt to cover up their problems by pretending they don't exist and pretending OTHERS don't really understand the text, I don't pull any punches in addressing that, either.

I can see now why, in part, it may be so difficult for you to admit that you are WRONG. Imagine what a blow it would be to your prodigeous ego, let alone your credibility, if you are shown undeniably to have a problem with reading comprehension yourself.

But, perhaps rather than resorting to dysfunctional and delusional denials, and pretending that you are right, you would be better served to adopt the adage: "physician heal thyself".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

by the way, Wade, I have a master's degree in diagnosing and remediating reading problems, and over twenty years of experience in the field. The program that I and two other teachers run at my school recently won a national award for closing the achievement gap between minorities and impoverished students and the nonminority, nonimpoverished population. So I'm a very reliable person in terms of recognizing reading difficulties.

And when I have students with reading problems who attempt to cover up their problems by pretending they don't exist and pretending OTHERS don't really understand the text, I don't pull any punches in addressing that, either.

I can see now why, in part, it may be so difficult for you to admit that you are WRONG. Imagine what a blow it would be to your prodigeous ego, let alone your credibility, if you are shown undeniably to have a problem with reading comprehension yourself.

But, perhaps rather than resorting to dysfunctional and delusional denials, and pretending that you are right, you would be better served to adopt the adage: "physician heal thyself".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, brother. Can Wade get any more asinine?

[Tator]

Let's parse this a bit and evaluate Wade's response.

Conversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into Mormonism. A new convert that is aligning with Mormons can't stay with a message that they believe in the church because it makes them feel good in some fairly ambiguous way, and it is possible that other people in other faiths feel just as good. So the conversion story has to morph into what the group demands, which is that a revelatory experience occurred and that the convert “knows” the church is “true”. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they were willing to abandon family and religious traditions, and turned on their family/friends who objected to their conversion and believed in the former religion. The story must always keep the former group in a “less than” light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

Conversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into Mormonism. A new convert that is aligning with Mormons can't stay with a message that they believe in the church because it makes them feel good in some fairly ambiguous way, and it is possible that other people in other faiths feel just as good.

Translation: The original "message" that the convert held was that he/she believed in the church because it makes him/her feel good in an ambiguous way, and people who believe in other religions might also feel good in that same ambiguous way. But the convert cannot retain that message and be accepted within Mormonism.

So the conversion story has to morph into what the group demands, which is that a revelatory experience occurred and that the convert “knows” the church is “true”. That is why they are so formulaic.

Translation: So the convert has to change the story to fit the group demands. Now the message is that the convert had a notable revelatory experience in which God "told" him/her the church is true. That is why testimonies all sound the same.

They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they were willing to abandon family and religious traditions, and turned on their family/friends who objected to their conversion and believed in the former religion.

They can't just admit that they abandoned their family and religious traditions based on ambiguous "feel good" feelings which other religionists also feel, and they can't just admit that they were willing to betray their family/friends on such a loose basis.

The story must always keep the former group in a “less than” light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

The convert's story must emphasize that his/her former religion was "less than" Mormonism in various ways: it has "less than" true authority, "less than" the full gospel, etc. Remember, they betrayed family and friends and have, in some cases, been willing to totally lose those relationships, so they have to keep up a good reason to justify that.

Wade's reply:

it would be irrational of me to suggests that this means that Mormon tesitmonies can't be trusted

Now, I forgot to connect every last single tiny little dot for Wade, so will do so now.

There are two steps involved in telling exmormons to shut up and sing, or, in this example, telling Mormons to shut up and sing. The above was just one part of the process.

First we need a term to label the group we have just described. To differentiate it from TBM, let's use Fanatical True Believer. FTB. FTBs are the group who "present a distorted view of the new religion and cannot be regarded as reliable informants by responsible journalists, scholars, or jurists" (see Kliever, one of the adherents of Bromley's model, above).

Now, here's the crucial part: there is another group that is not viewed with the same suspicion as this group. That is the Regular Believer group. Rosebud. RBs may actually have the exact same ideas and opinions as the FTBs, but the sole difference is:

they don't talk about it.


So, if Mormons want to NOT be classified in the "unreliable traitor" FTB group, all they have to do is:

SHUT UP.

[_beastie]

Oh, brother. Can Wade get any more asinine?

Oh, absolutely. Whenever I think that he has "jumped the shark" and cannot possibly produce a statement even more ridiculous than his previous winner, he pulls out all stops and produces another prize winning bit of idiocy.

[_Runtu]

Oh, brother. Can Wade get any more asinine?

Oh, absolutely. Whenever I think that he has "jumped the shark" and cannot possibly produce a statement even more ridiculous than his previous winner, he pulls out all stops and produces another prize winning bit of idiocy.

Yes, but I think his spelling is improving.