BEASTIE: Please boycott the pundits forum!

[_beastie]

Wade,

Please respond to this analogy:

A medical study testing the effectiveness of a drug on disease X. Research is conducted utilizing one specific drug and one specific population. The scientists share their results.

Mr. Quack decides to "expand" the definitional threads of the study, and declares that the studies support his contention that the specified drug not only works as a treatment for disease X, but also disease Y and Z!!!

You have any problems with that?

Wade replied:

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

Please demonstrate how my analogy if fallacious.

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Now that’s a nice slight of hand, worth of an apologist.

[_beastie]

I have essentially tossed my hands in the air and given up, and will for a time go back to treating you like you treat others in my faith.

Spoken by a true disciple of Jesus!

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure I have a problem with that. Since your innitial analogy backfired, you have desparately resorted now to idiotically comparing descriptions with perscriptions, definitions with drugs, and relatively similar classes of people with types of deseases. In other words, your analogy is fallacious on a number of levels. Surprise, surprise! ;-)

But, even considering the analogy on its own terms, I would not necessarily deem it problematic on theoretical grounds. Much depends on the nature of the drug as well as the respective deseases. For example, it is not necessarily unreasonable for a scientist to use as a basis for formulating a theory on the benefits of kemotherapy in cases of colon cancer in men and women by using studies of women who used kemotherapy for treating breast cancer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it just me, or is anyone else noting a harsher tone in Wade's posts?

I have noticed it too.

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Could it be me once again going back to acting like many here, and treating others as they treat my faith?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The trouble, my dear friend Wade, is that you never deal in specifics. You wander off on these practically irrelevant tangents when it would be much easier for you to say, "Hey---it hurts my feelings when you say _________________ about the Church."

The real trouble, my dear friend "Scratch", is that your mind is closed--so much so that you are incapable of seeing the obvious and the specific. I devoted an entire thread, and numerous followup posts in other threads, addressing the specific issue of considering the Church as lying about what it claims to be, and the emotional effects that consideration has on all parties concerned. Did you get what I said there? Did you even come close to getting it? Of course not. You, like Runtu and others, fought me every baby step of the way until it was obviously futile attempting to go on.

No, Wade. I pointed out that you wanted to essentially re-write the dictionary, and you got all bent out of shape. You refused to address any specific instances of Church dishonest, and continued to insist that the full dictionary definition---for some vague and unspecified reason---was not applicable in this case.

So, don't lie to me (I am using one of your favored connotations here) in claiming that the issue is one of lack of specificity.

Again, it *was* an issue of specificity, as I have already indicated. The problem lay in your refusal to acknowledge some of the specific connotations of "lie." Also, the question, "Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?" is awfully broad, rather than specific, since, as the conversation in the thread readily demonstrates, "what the Church claims to be" covers a whole lot of ground.

It isn't. The issue is, and has always been, YOU, and your glaring flaws. But, you are so entrenched in lies to yourself, that you haven't the capacity to realize this, let alone admit it to yourself or others. And, so there it is, and there it will remain.

I have essentially tossed my hands in the air and given up, and will for a time go back to treating you like you treat others in my faith.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again: how do I treat "others in your faith"? And which "others" are we talking about here? You? Loran? Rollo? Liz? Moksha?

[_beastie]

Well, if my legs were flexible enough I'd kick myself in my own arse, because I succumbed and responded to inanity again.

Relying, as ever, on her own propensity to ignore context, Juliann decided she caught me contradicting myself.

Her reply:

I want to take a look at what you were arguing against on your recent monologue on ZLMB preceding your attack on me here:

Beastie's comments:

It should be painfully obvious by now that this is an entirely different experience than that which exmormons recount.

As I read this book, I became convinced that the majority of exmormons on the internet would be more accurately described as whistleblowers.

This is a good time to point out the problems with trying to utilize a group of fellow exmormons as an “external oppositional” group.

Exmormons certainly accuse the church of being dishonest and manipulative, and of hiding information by “giving milk before meat” to investigators.

I was trying to differentiate between apostates and whistleblowers. [this refers to your attempt to identify exmormons as whistleblowers which is no more appropriate than identifying them as apostates.]

Once again, using the term in the specific manner utilized in this text, it is not enough to simply be a vocal critic of the former religion; one must also be a resource for other oppositional groups.

When Juliann first offered select citations from this book in order to support her theory (which was vaguely stated, but seem to consist of a justification for stating that apostate narratives, which she did not distinguish from exmormon narratives, are unreliable),

Exmormons are not

Exmormon narratives do not

Exmormons are not using the word in that manner.

You were continually arguing using ex-Mormons rather than the limited category of "apostate" because that is what you were insisting I was doing. As for what seems to really be behind this need to interpret a book for us, you continued to stress this...

QUOTE
I think it is clear that RFM would not constitute an “oppositional coalition” but rather an exmember support group.


Remember that you demanded that I "Can you provide any evidence that I suddenly have changed my story?"

QUOTE
I am not denying that RFM is an oppositional organization. I am denying that RFM, or any other group of exmormons, has joined together with other oppositional groups, some of which are not comprised of exmormons in order to escalate tension between the LDS church and the host society in order to pressure the host society to utilize regulatory units to control the LDS church.


This change was not over months of reading, Beastie. It was in one thread. This is what you have done continually which makes talking to you about anything a game of hide and seek. You changed your story because you could no longer support your misrepresentation of what I had been saying the entire time. Nor could others continue to interrupt a discussion time and time again to insist that I am maligning all exies. That is why the new thread is going well and why I suggest moving there.

RFM can be an oppositional coalition/organization and a support group. The very fact that you have pointed out the dissimilar elements of those who constitute RFM makes it a coalition as much as an organization if you are going to try to nitpick the words. Further, its alliances with book publishers and event managers for any number of things meets any definition of coalition. This is the literal interpretation problem that you have had the entire time and you have had this difficulty with your attempts to tell Brant how to interpret texts he used when in a PhD program. There is one definition, one interpretation, one truth. And you are hold the keys to all because you have read one book. I may not have been clear in every post but I have clarified my intent so many times there is simply no excuse to say I have not made myself understood. Thus, you rely on accusing me of hiding, changing my story, denying, etc. etc. Enough is enough and if you prefer to leave rather than to try to understand another viewpoint, well...bye.

My reply:

I am sorry that my use of "oppositional organization" left you so confused. I really believed that I offered enough context behind the remark to avoid such confusion.

RFM is obviously a group opposed to the LDS church. That is why I said, long ago, sure, you can call it an oppositional organization.

But it is not an oppositional coalition in the manner described by Bromley. Why? Because it is a group made of solely exmembers. They do oppose the church and they are organized. But they are not a coalition that has joined together with other members of the host society, who have never been members of the LDS church, and are still anxious about and opposing the LDS church.

There is not one example provided in the text in which the oppositional coalition is comprised solely of exmembers. Why? Because the oppositional coalition is a reflection of the anxiety and opposition of the host society, not a reflection of the anxiety and opposition of exmembers.

I have offered citation after citation that demonstrates this, and yet this still appears to be beyond your grasp.

I suggest you do some serious reading on "confirmation bias", that concept which is apparently new to you, because you have displayed a textbook case of it on this thread. You only are attending to information that you believe supports that which you have predetermined to be correct. So when you read the words "oppositional group", you immediately decide it means the exact same thing as the very specifically defined term in Bromley's text. You are doing the same thing with "atrocity", and "captivity" tales. You see a word and interpret it to mean exactly what you already need and want it to mean, and disregard the context that contradicts your usage.

If you can provide one single example from Bromley's text in which the oppositional coalition, using his specific definition, was comprised solely of exmembers, then I will reread that section and consider that my own confirmation bias has affected my interpretation of the text. If you cannot provide one single example from Bromley's text in which the oppositional coalition was comprised solely of exmembers, then you need to reread the sections that discussed the oppositional coalition and consider that your confirmation bias has led you to misinterpret the information.

Unless you can provide a response of substance, that demonstrates that you have actually tried to engage and process my words, I have nothing further to say on the subject. I've beaten my head against the wall for pages now, and have offered citation after citation that demonstrates:

the oppositional coalition is largely comprised of nonmembers of the NRM because it is a reflection of the concern within the host society about the NRM and the desire to control it. The oppositional coalition uses apostates to further its own purpose, and discards them when their narrative does not fit their purpose or when the host society has grown inured to the apostate narrative.

[_beastie]

Here are Juliann's other responses that I'm not bothering with:

You have known that this is a private board since its inception, Beastie. You also know that many ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, and those of differing religions or none at all post here with regularity. Your entire purpose in this thread was to paint me into a corner by demanding I explain old threads when I made it very clear that I had new books and wanted to incorporate those into my thinking. Your complaint at the beginning of this thread was that I did not say things sweetly enough. When I try to comply to make sure that I am not offending anyone who is on our board to argue with us, you make it an issue of mindreading authors you have never studied or known of before reading one book. You began this way:

QUOTE
Bromley, on the other hand, was quite specific and clear in his definitions of his terms. The problem is that his terms are far too specific and narrow for your use, which I think you are realizing. He was describing one particular, fairly unique phenomenon, but you have attempted to broaden it to the point where it is no longer an accurate reflection of his model.


I am saying this for others. The demand to stay within one person's definition of someone else's theory is just not supportable. Starting arguments because I choose to use a particular word over another is what drives these discussions into the ground. No matter how many times I explain myself it is not acceptable to you...I just am not allowed to use the word "angry". Or "apostate". Or a myriad of other rules.

The various authors in the particular book that you demand be used instead of the others demonstrates the many different ways with which this model can be used and applied. All you have done is insist, over and over and over that I'm not doing something the right way. Yet you do not support this with anything but your vehemence. When I communicate directly with those who are in a position to give me constructive criticism and there are no objections, there is nowhere for you to go with this continued harping, Beastie. You have been saying you are leaving the thread for some time now. That is not unexpected.

We are regularly accosted on this board, our board, by anti-Mormons who ridicule and demean us and our religion. We seem to have that under better control now. But it does make me angry at times and it makes me angry because we do not seek you out. We are not the ones going to the message boards that you congregate on so that we can mock what you hold dear or tell you what to believe. Yet you come here and complain because I do not "frame" what I am saying nicely enough as I dodge bullets on a daily basis. Perhaps it is time that you all begin to deal with that instead of demanding that we listen to anything you have to say with a "thank you, ma'am". It isn't going to happen anymore than you are going to convince me that my religion is flawed or I am going to convince you that it isn't.

This is from a thread you pulled up from eight months ago with the expectation that I would not have modified, elaborated, changed or refined what I had said then. You thought this was not stated nicely enough,

QUOTE
Quoting me: We regularly hear the conversion narratives that sustain the myth of the "courageous" apostate who is only searching for "truth" while willing to suffer all sorts of indignity to follow his/her "conscience" in order to "help" others. In their eagerness to "inform" and "help" they are oblivious to the fact that deconversion follows a natural history as surely and consistently as conversion does.


I was glad to see this because it assures me that my intent has remained consistent. My point has always been to get to the similarities between exit and entrance narratives. I am rarely allowed to get that far, fortunately the continuation thread is getting there and it is gratifying to see the responses. We do regularly hear the deconversion narratives here. That is why we banned "testimonies" from both sides. They do follow a familiar pattern and it isn't something that can be debated without turning into a brawl. There is an expectation that we will be helped by hearing that we have been tricked and manipulated and that if we follow your lead, we too will find truth and freedom by leaving our religion. That is where the conversion narratives become of interest to me. That is why I always tie them to the topic of apostates. I think they make both of our journeys, in and out of Mormonism more rational and more understandable. Most of all, I think it removes the stigma. And I can't help but think...as I see the explosive reaction to this by dedicated critics...that it is not a welcome sight to see some ex-Mormons benefitting from this. I also don't think some of the angry countermos like being compared to Mormons in any way.

I use message boards for feedback. It helps me see flaws and problems. To you and your friends who use your private boards to ridicule those who post here, it is dishonest or deceptive to vary from something said a year ago. I am supposed to read one book and forever hold my tongue. I am not allowed to make a mistake and I am certainly not allowed to change anything let alone add to it. One it has been said, the thinking has been done....case closed...run to your boards to shred your opponents' character.

And the admission that I am not talking about all exies only came later. Perhaps you would do well to simply admit that you misunderstood that point as well. There was a noticable change in attitude after emails were sent out and a rush to the threads to say it was understood that no one had ever been talking about "ex-Mormons" the whole darn time and I was just so gosh darn out of it to say that. You goaded me at one point:

QUOTE
Juliann, can you do that? Can you provide any evidence that I suddenly have changed my story?


Let's start with your supporters. The way the thread began before it was moved here was with these statements. This misrepresentation and continual blanket references to all exiters went on into two pages.

QUOTE
Tarski: You wish to discredit people who having had first hand experience with a cult wish to expose what a cult wishes would remain hidden.


QUOTE
chonquey: Surely you realize that making blanket statements about former believers and their motivations, many of which are untrue and inapplicable to the majority of cases makes you a hypocrite when you pout about "Angry apostates."


QUOTE
Sleeping Willow: You are painting those who leave the Church with a very broad and misguided brush.


QUOTE
Dartagnan/kevin Graham: Virtually everyone here who used to be LDS, is an apostate by Mormon definition.
. . . . .
Juliann, that pretty much describes most former LDS on this message forum. So how is this “clearly” not calling at least some of the present ex-Mormons “apostates”?


QUOTE
Dan Vogel: Those who join Mormonism become Catholic apostates, Baptist apostates, Methodist apostates, etc. Then, like good Mormon converts, they "make it their mission" to convert family and friends to Mormonism also, telling them that their creeds are an abomination in the sight of God.

And

The Ex-Mormon Foundation is associated with RFM. I fully admit that I may not understand the relationship but there is at a minimum, a very supportive relationship. I would see RFM as an adjunct to this organization, in other words, a coalition. http://exmormonfoundation.org/node/6

QUOTE
Mission Statement
We are former Mormons, sympathetic non-Mormons, or non-believing Mormons of record who left or rejected Mormonism after having discovered that its claims are false, its message misleading, its methods of proselytizing dishonest, and its promises of happiness and salvation hollow. We, or those we know, spent countless years living according to its rules, obeying its leaders, and serving as its teachers, officers, missionaries, and devoted followers.

We want the world to know of the harm it causes, the families it devastates, the methods it uses to control minds, and the half-truths and deceptions by which it deludes the public, particularly those who are approached by its missionaries. We want to warn those who are not well-acquainted with it that Mormonism is not what it claims to be. We have been there, and we want the world to have the facts.


If these items (and it is not all they say they offer) does not define an apostate organization, I don't know what does:

Offer emotional support to those who are leaving, or who have left, Mormonism;

Sponsor seminars, conferences, and speakers about Mormonism, primarily for those who are leaving Mormonism, but also for all who wish to know more;

Advertise the efforts of the Foundation and others who are working toward similar goals;

Are recognized by the media and by the general public as a responsible and reliable counter-voice on Mormonism; our views on specific issues having to do with Mormonism are sought out and promulgated by the national media.

Provide speakers through a speakers bureau for organizations, churches and other groups interested in learning about Mormonism;

Are a counter-force to the massive Mormon missionary and advertising effort.

Provide financial support to individuals and groups who are working to present a more accurate view of Mormonism.

[_Who Knows]

Could it have anything to do with, after significant time and effort, having finally reached an impasse in my attempts to get others to treat my faith wih less harshness and more charity and fairlness?

Dude, I could have told you months ago that that would be impossible. I'm surprised that you actually believed your bullsh!t would somehow change people's minds.

Does this mean that you're going back to your 'mirroring' bullsh!t again?

[Tator]

Dude, I could have told you months ago that that would be impossible. I'm surprised that you actually believed your bullsh!t would somehow change people's minds.

Does this mean that you're going back to your 'mirroring' bullsh!t again?

I imagine it must be absolutely delicious to find a way to justify engaging in bad behavior that one has clearly wanted to engage in, and simultaneously absolving yourself of accountability for that behavior.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here are Juliann's other responses that I'm not bothering with:

You have known that this is a private board since its inception, Beastie. You also know that many ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, and those of differing religions or none at all post here with regularity. Your entire purpose in this thread was to paint me into a corner by demanding I explain old threads when I made it very clear that I had new books and wanted to incorporate those into my thinking. Your complaint at the beginning of this thread was that I did not say things sweetly enough. When I try to comply to make sure that I am not offending anyone who is on our board to argue with us, you make it an issue of mindreading authors you have never studied or known of before reading one book. You began this way:

QUOTE
Bromley, on the other hand, was quite specific and clear in his definitions of his terms. The problem is that his terms are far too specific and narrow for your use, which I think you are realizing. He was describing one particular, fairly unique phenomenon, but you have attempted to broaden it to the point where it is no longer an accurate reflection of his model.


I am saying this for others. The demand to stay within one person's definition of someone else's theory is just not supportable. Starting arguments because I choose to use a particular word over another is what drives these discussions into the ground. No matter how many times I explain myself it is not acceptable to you...I just am not allowed to use the word "angry". Or "apostate". Or a myriad of other rules.

The various authors in the particular book that you demand be used instead of the others demonstrates the many different ways with which this model can be used and applied. All you have done is insist, over and over and over that I'm not doing something the right way. Yet you do not support this with anything but your vehemence. When I communicate directly with those who are in a position to give me constructive criticism and there are no objections, there is nowhere for you to go with this continued harping, Beastie. You have been saying you are leaving the thread for some time now. That is not unexpected.

We are regularly accosted on this board, our board, by anti-Mormons who ridicule and demean us and our religion. We seem to have that under better control now. But it does make me angry at times and it makes me angry because we do not seek you out. We are not the ones going to the message boards that you congregate on so that we can mock what you hold dear or tell you what to believe. Yet you come here and complain because I do not "frame" what I am saying nicely enough as I dodge bullets on a daily basis. Perhaps it is time that you all begin to deal with that instead of demanding that we listen to anything you have to say with a "thank you, ma'am". It isn't going to happen anymore than you are going to convince me that my religion is flawed or I am going to convince you that it isn't.

This is from a thread you pulled up from eight months ago with the expectation that I would not have modified, elaborated, changed or refined what I had said then. You thought this was not stated nicely enough,

QUOTE
Quoting me: We regularly hear the conversion narratives that sustain the myth of the "courageous" apostate who is only searching for "truth" while willing to suffer all sorts of indignity to follow his/her "conscience" in order to "help" others. In their eagerness to "inform" and "help" they are oblivious to the fact that deconversion follows a natural history as surely and consistently as conversion does.


I was glad to see this because it assures me that my intent has remained consistent. My point has always been to get to the similarities between exit and entrance narratives. I am rarely allowed to get that far, fortunately the continuation thread is getting there and it is gratifying to see the responses. We do regularly hear the deconversion narratives here. That is why we banned "testimonies" from both sides. They do follow a familiar pattern and it isn't something that can be debated without turning into a brawl. There is an expectation that we will be helped by hearing that we have been tricked and manipulated and that if we follow your lead, we too will find truth and freedom by leaving our religion. That is where the conversion narratives become of interest to me. That is why I always tie them to the topic of apostates. I think they make both of our journeys, in and out of Mormonism more rational and more understandable. Most of all, I think it removes the stigma. And I can't help but think...as I see the explosive reaction to this by dedicated critics...that it is not a welcome sight to see some ex-Mormons benefitting from this. I also don't think some of the angry countermos like being compared to Mormons in any way.

I use message boards for feedback. It helps me see flaws and problems. To you and your friends who use your private boards to ridicule those who post here, it is dishonest or deceptive to vary from something said a year ago. I am supposed to read one book and forever hold my tongue. I am not allowed to make a mistake and I am certainly not allowed to change anything let alone add to it. One it has been said, the thinking has been done....case closed...run to your boards to shred your opponents' character.

And the admission that I am not talking about all exies only came later. Perhaps you would do well to simply admit that you misunderstood that point as well. There was a noticable change in attitude after emails were sent out and a rush to the threads to say it was understood that no one had ever been talking about "ex-Mormons" the whole darn time and I was just so gosh darn out of it to say that. You goaded me at one point:

QUOTE
Juliann, can you do that? Can you provide any evidence that I suddenly have changed my story?


Let's start with your supporters. The way the thread began before it was moved here was with these statements. This misrepresentation and continual blanket references to all exiters went on into two pages.

QUOTE
Tarski: You wish to discredit people who having had first hand experience with a cult wish to expose what a cult wishes would remain hidden.


QUOTE
chonquey: Surely you realize that making blanket statements about former believers and their motivations, many of which are untrue and inapplicable to the majority of cases makes you a hypocrite when you pout about "Angry apostates."


QUOTE
Sleeping Willow: You are painting those who leave the Church with a very broad and misguided brush.


QUOTE
Dartagnan/kevin Graham: Virtually everyone here who used to be LDS, is an apostate by Mormon definition.
. . . . .
Juliann, that pretty much describes most former LDS on this message forum. So how is this “clearly” not calling at least some of the present ex-Mormons “apostates”?


QUOTE
Dan Vogel: Those who join Mormonism become Catholic apostates, Baptist apostates, Methodist apostates, etc. Then, like good Mormon converts, they "make it their mission" to convert family and friends to Mormonism also, telling them that their creeds are an abomination in the sight of God.

And

The Ex-Mormon Foundation is associated with RFM. I fully admit that I may not understand the relationship but there is at a minimum, a very supportive relationship. I would see RFM as an adjunct to this organization, in other words, a coalition. http://exmormonfoundation.org/node/6

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to point out to juliann that The Ex-Mormon Foundation seems to be "affiliated" with RfM in about the same way that FAIR and/or MAD are "affiliated" with the LDS Church. In fact, feel free to quote from FAIR Chairman John Lynch's letter to me on my blog, in which he argues strenuously that FAIR is not "affiliated" with the Church.

[_Mister Scratch]

I just went back and took a gander at the old "juliann is Distorting Evidence Yet Again" thread that I started in response to juliann's "Church Exit Stories" thread that she started on MAD/FAIR a while ago. It seemed fitting to review some further comments of hers:

An official LDS definition:

Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

The LDS definition includes the sociological definition...I want to point out that we are on the same page with the experts, thus....we don't have to keep repeating the same definition over and over. That is what I mean by not using the quiet leave takers as a human shield for the angry exmos. No one is talking about the leave takers, no one ever has. So stop trying to interject them into a discussion about angry exmos.

Somewhat interesting, in my opinion. Perhaps I will bump the thread.

[_beastie]

heh - I don't have to copy the post because it's in the main forum, but Juliann's coy reply was that exmembers ARE nonmembers.

This is almost becoming painful to read on her behalf.