Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

beastie wrote: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.


And the recylcled smoke continues to billow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:
And the recylcled smoke continues to billow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Translation: No matter how many times you repeat it, Wade won't understand your point.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
And the recylcled smoke continues to billow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Translation: No matter how many times you repeat it, Wade won't understand your point.


Yet again you falsely put words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
And the recylcled smoke continues to billow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Translation: No matter how many times you repeat it, Wade won't understand your point.


Yet again you falsely put words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I figured that your snarky, substance-free post deserved one in kind.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Wade,

I eagerly await your response to this previous post of mine:



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


Quote:
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.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply