beastie wrote:Scratch -
In reference to your earlier questions you wanted clarified, I really don't think I can get any clear answers from Juliann for any question.
Heh. Well, let's take stock for a moment:
Mister Scratch wrote:1. What is this "other" text of Mauss's juliann is referring to---i.e., the one where he supposedly says that "the Internet has changed everything"?
From what I can tell based on her posts, there *isn't* any "other text." She is basing this---I guess---on
conversations she may or may not have actually had with Prof. Mauss.
2. I propose that somebody demand that juliann supply evidence that most exmos "go away quietly." I am convinced that no such evidence exists. Unless juliann or someone else can supply evidence that this is the normative behavior for exmos, I think she and the other apologists are going to have to concede that the exmos on, for example, RfM, are---or at least ought to be considers as possibly being---the standard model, rather than the exception. She and Nighthawke both seem anxious to maintain that they are only talking about "a very small group" of exmos. I say, "Prove it." Wade was unable to supply any evidence for "Mr. Ds," and I doubt juliann will be able to either.
Yeah, she has essentially backed off from this. Now she's saying something like, "only Benson and McCue count as full-blown apostates." Her definition of "apostate" is beginning to seem curiously like Bill Clinton's definition of "sexual relations." But this is still an important question, in my opinion. I'll come back to it momentarily.
3. Insist that juliann explain how RfM fits Johnson's "apostate" definition. Especially, insist that she explain how RfM and its ilk constitute a "moral campaign" against the LDS Church.
The best argument she's been able to produce in support of this is that RfM
links to other sites. Oooohhh! What a
compelling argument! She is going to have to do better than this.
4. Call for a clarification of the term "attack" as it's being used by Orpheus. In other words, what constitutes a genuine "attack" on the Church? Is there a difference between genuine criticism and attack? Is there a difference (and now I cannot help but refer back to another classic Wade thread) between "venting" and attack?
Here, as I indicated in my post on her clarification of "atrocity tale," she is really, really skating on thin ice. Now she is saying (from what I can gather) that mere mention of the Church's ugly history vis-a-vis race, for example, is grounds for one to be labeled an apostate, provided that one does it on in a venue such as RfM, which has links to "other sites." But, then again, maybe not.... It's not altogether clear.
Anyhow. Back to what I mentioned above. juliann's definition of "apostate" now appears to be officially meaningless. That is why she is throwing out this (ironically enough) "neener neener chest pounding" challenge to you to say whether or not there are any Mormon apostates. While I think that with enough tweaking, you could get the Bromley model to allow for LDS apostates (as Mauss has apparently done), I would feel comfortable saying, flat out, "No. According to the model, there is no such thing as a Mormon 'apostate'."
I wonder if it would be of much value to ask her what difference there is between a genuine, apostate 'atrocity tale,' and the sort of de rigueur 'venting' that takes place daily on RfM. Or is she wanting to claim that 'atrocity tales' aren't specific to apostates? Somehow, I think it's the latter. ; )
Hey, here's an idea: maybe you could talk the mods into lifting my ban? Now there's a thought! I can't do much good when I'm languishing in purgatory!