Same page, post 150:
as an under-the-radar attempt to accuse me of dishonesty, you wrote:
“Aside from that, it is clear to me that Pahoran was extremely misleading in using this as an example of how apostates often blame the church for their divorces, but in reality are adulterers, abusers, or tyrannical. This example is so clearly inappropriate for the point Pahoran was using it for that I would be seriously skeptical of any other examples Pahoran may offer.”
And yet there are still some who claim that ad hominem is a Mormon technique. Why, I cannot tell.
My insert: interesting that Pahoran felt this was an ad-hom when used against him, but not when he used it against Dr. W.
Continuing the same response:
(quoting me): “Note that:
1) Manna was not an apostate. He was excommunicated for abuse.”
(Pahoran’s reply) I was perfectly well aware of this fact. This is frequently part of the pattern, which I did not elucidate. However, it is neither here nor there--the main point is that these people blame the Church for consequences that arise from their own actions.
Note the absence of any clarification that Pahoran was referring to the brother. Pahoran is clearly agreeing that he was referencing the excommunicated Gino as one of “these people who blame the church for consequences that arise from their own actions.”
Quote:
________________________________________
2) Manna continued to incorporate elements of Mormonism in his delusions.
________________________________________
As have others--Mitchell and the Lafferty brothers, for example.
Quote:
________________________________________
3) Manna apparently, at least to some degree, continued to attend church after his excommunication.
________________________________________
As have others, according to their own reports; Primary Chorister, SLDrone and Ray Ago spring to mind.
Quote:
________________________________________
4) The only person who appeared to link Mormonism to Mannas disorder was his brother. Manna himself appeared to believe the church was trying to take his home from him. (if Pahoran is correct, and the bishop finally did advise her to leave, that is probably the source of that comment)
________________________________________
Very likely.
Quote:
________________________________________
One can only imagine Pahorans comments if an exmormon used a similarily flawed example to prove something derogatory about LDS. One doesn't have to imagine, go look at the case he tried to build against Analytics on far less evidence.
________________________________________
I fail to see how the evidence presented materially contradicts what I actually said about anything. Especially since I said that the case was atypical when I first mentioned it.
Clearly Pahoran is comfortable using Gino to demonstrate that:
The issue being that some people prefer to falsely claim that the Church breaks up their marriages rather than face up to their own responsibilities.
Later, in response to my criticism that
You offered this example, neglecting to mention the man was a diagnosed schizophrenic,
Pahoran replied, on post 158, page 16
So? Abnormal psychology is not exactly unheard of in cases of apostasy or excommunication.
Another perfect opportunity for Pahoran to clarify that he was not really using the schizophrenic Gino to demonstrate his point, but Gino’s brother, who is never mentioned as a member of the LDS church, or an apostate.
I responded on post 159:
I simply cannot understand anyone who would believe that the fact that the man was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic was not a pertinent and important detail, and would consider it a nit picking detail. I wonder how much you really understand about mental illness….
Let me try this tact, although I have a feeling it will prove as fruitless as any other conversation we've had.
Pretend some exmormon wants to make the point that the church's teaching that a human being can progress to godhood, or that a human being can actually communicate directly with God, can result in believers becoming abusive and grandiose. As an example, that exmormon could cite personal knowledge of a devout LDS believer who, in his early twenties, began to insist to his parents that he was the true prophet, not the then prophet, and began to behave abusively and violently towards them when they argued his point.
Now pretend that somehow it was possible to obtain background information on this case that the exmormon neglected to mention - ie, that the young man was suffering from untreated bipolar disorder.
To you, this unrevealed information is critically important, and the fact that the exmormon used this example to prove his/her point without mentioning the young man's mental disorder means that the exmormon in question is using some standard of judgment for appropriate examples that you reject, because, in your view, the mental illness of the individual was the entire point of his sad case, not his LDS beliefs.
Then imagine you find out this information, share it, and protest to the exmormon that his/her example is so fundamentally flawed that he/her suspects any other example (that could not be proven one way or the other) may also be so flawed.
Wouldn't you feel justified?
Reality is that the exmormon may not have been lying, but may simply believe that the mental illness was not pertinent and did not, in and of itself, negate the example. Perhaps that exmormon's bias against Mormonism is so significant that the exmormon honestly thought the mental illness was too insignificant to mention.
Wouldn't you still feel justified in saying, well, whatever reason you had for neglecting this information, I think it is extremely pertinent, and for whatever reason you do not, that signifies such a serious divide in how we would each evaluate examples and proof, that you simply cannot accept further examples from that exmormon?
by the way, the scenario I described was a true one, sadly enough, and not the sole case I know of wherein a mentally ill Mormon expressed his/her mental illness in the "Mormon culture/language". I would never use an example such as that to prove anything about Mormonism, because I understand mental illness - especially bipolar and schizophrenia - are biological illnesses that have nothing to do with religious convictions, although they would naturally be expressed through the person's natural language and culture.
Pahoran understands these points very well when he is considering Dr. W’s post. He is less able to understand these points when he considers his own posts from the past.
by the way, I don’t recall ever having brought this up before, so I’m hardly obsessed with an ancient vendetta. But I certainly never forgot the exchange, because I found it pretty startling.
Pahoran’s reply:
And I wonder how much you understood about the point I was trying to make.
Did the Bishop, in a very rare departure from standard LDS policy and practice, advise the wife to leave the husband? Yes, he did.
Was this because the husband had ceased to be an active, believing member? No, it was not.
Was it because the husband was violent, abusive and controlling? Yes, it was.
Should the fact of the husband's mental illness somehow make the wife's situation more bearable? Should it have changed the substance of the bishop's counsel? Does it somehow validate the brother's failed lawsuit and ignorant rantings against the Church?
What do you think?
So my two-sentence summary of the case didn't bring out all the details you think are relevant. Woop-de-doo!!
The problem is clearly this: because you project upon me some huge bias against ex-Mormons, you assume that I mentioned the case in order to show you (collectively) in a bad light.
This, however, is simply not true.
I mentioned it because it is one of many examples where spurious accusations were made against the Church of Jesus Christ; accusations that the Church "breaks up" families, when the cause of the breakup invariably resides elsewhere. The fact that the culpable party was mentally ill is entirely beside the point. If he was a vampire, being visited by aliens or possessed by the ghost of Stalin, it would have been equally irrelevant. The only relevant point is that the actions of the spouse, and not the Church, were the cause of the breakup.
Note: Pahoran believes the man’s schizophrenia was an unimportant detail: woop-de-doo. And, I fact, the fact that Gino was mentally ill “is entirely beside the point.”
Once again, I note: nowhere in the original thread does Pahoran indicate he’s really referencing
the brother.
In his OP, Pahoran insisted that:
First of all, just one ground rule: each of us owns our own position. What that means is that I shall state what my position is. Anyone who disagrees with my position is entirely free to dispute it; but no-one is at liberty to contradict me about what it is.
The position you need to own is the one you took on the Z thread, since that is what I brought up. If you have altered your position on this story since then, then feel free to educate us to that fact. But on the Z thread, it is clear you were always talking about
Gino. It’s also clear that you found his mental illness irrelevant to the issue:
The issue being that some people prefer to falsely claim that the Church breaks up their marriages rather than face up to their own responsibilities.
The thread was closed shortly thereafter, with the moderator’s chastisement to
me.
by the way, on Pahoran’s “valid criticism” thread, I actually supported his position and explained repeatedly to Dr. W why it is not appropriate to use the actions of a mentally ill person to condemn a group or belief system.
in my opinion, further evidence that Pahoran really doesn’t mind exploiting tragedies involving the mentally ill:
For the record, I feel no "moral outrage" about Dr W's obvious desperation at the lack of a valid argument against the Church of Jesus Christ. To the contrary, I'm rather pleased with it. I point out the contrast between his self-description and his actions because that contrast supports my position.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 4256&st=80Pahoran is pleased when a critic exploits a tragedy involving a mentally ill person, because it gives him another opportunity to score a polemic point – exactly what he did when he exploited the Gino case years ago on ZLMB.