"Gino" and "Christine" (For Beastie)

[_Pahoran]

I only have time for a very brief response, and will return later this evening for a more detailed response to (both Pahoran and) DrW.

Also, with which part of this statement do you disagree?

A - you were engaging in polemics

B - you exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness

A. I was certainly engaging in polemics. When Pahoran is on the thread, it is difficult to do otherwise.

This is as truthful as any other assertion you've ever made. I was nowhere in sight when you carefully constructed your malicious bit of demagoguery on your blog; and that is where this started, isn't it?

B. As to "exploiting" the Christine Jonson tragedy, I was using it as an example of how unfounded belief, especially in demonstrably false truth claims, can lead to unintended consequences that can be fatal.

You were exploiting it to make a baseless attack upon the Church of Jesus Christ.

1. The mother in question did not kill her children because of her LDS beliefs, but because of her mental illness.
2. Therefore, the death of her children was a consequence, not of "unfounded belief," but of her mental illness.
3. But you chose to make the "demonstrably false" argument that her actions were the consequence of a "logical" understanding and application of LDS doctrine.
4. And you relied upon the "shock value" of the tragedy in order to elicit an emotional response which you then attempted to turn into hatred against the Church of Jesus Christ.
5. You compounded these lies with gratuitous addition. For instance, you claimed to have known about the tragedy at the time, and to have left the Church because of it.
6. However, you cited as your source for the story the book by Ann Rule, No Regrets And Other True Cases, publised in 2006 which assigned the mother the pseudonym of "Christine Jonsen."
7. And you yourself consistently called her "Christine Jonson," which means that the Ann Rule book was your sole source of information for this story.
8. Thus, you lied outright when you pretended to have been personally aware of the events when they occurred.
9. Your use of this case was therefore the most cynical, premeditated exploitation possible.

My comments were "exploitation" of the tragedy to the same extent that pointing out the religion-rooted motivation for the suicides of gay young LDS men is "exploitation". Some would simply call it facing the facts.

In the which, they would be lying.

As I rather think you know, Wertlos, "gay" men commit suicide at elevated rates across the board, and there is no evidence linking "gay" suicides to religious affiliation.

by the way: Speaking of unfounded belief, I note that you did not answer my question about denying your children an assured inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom.

If you are addressing Beastie, she's no more a Mormon than you are. If you are addressing me, you are certainly lying. Here, again, is my original response to that question:

• The notion that any living person can be correctly certain that they will never be eligible to inherit the Celestial Kingdom is in all respects contrary to LDS doctrine. The opportunity for repentance is always before us, and "Christine Jonsen" would have understood that, had her mind been working properly.
  
  She would also have understood that most of what had gone wrong in her life was actually the fault of others.
• Given that I want what is best for my children, I would want to give them the best opportunity for personal growth in the years of their mortal probation. Just like every other normally functioning LDS parent.

At one point, you tried to argue that "Christine" had taken the "logical" action based upon "believing it all." This was yet another lie. In her mentally deranged state, "Christine" forgot a number of important beliefs that would have protected her and her children, had her beliefs actually been motivating. In reality, her actions were precipitated by her severe mental illness, although she subsequently explained them in terms of her belief system, as she would inevitably have done, whatever her beliefs might have been.

Ignoring this fact, you cynically, and dishonestly, exploited this tragedy in pursuit of your own hate-based agenda; and in the process, you crafted a brand new "blood libel" against the Latter-day Saints.

Once upon a time you very reluctantly, and with heavy qualification, admitted that the "Christine Jonson" (as you call her) case was not a good example of the point you were trying to make. Beastie eagerly showered you with "kudos" for that reluctant admission. Have you now backslid from that, or are you willing to accept that you were wrong to use that case as you did?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Baker]

It is a dangerous thing to lead a schizophrenic person to believe that the voice in his/her head is that of the lord or the holy ghost. I've seen examples of bizarre experiences being recounted by mentally ill members on home teaching visits and in testimony meetings. In my experience, these people are often left to their delusions so long as the experiences motivate them to continue belief in the church. There are times when the magical aspects of the faith can become all too real to those incapable of applying a certain degree of skepticism to their own religious experiences.

That said, to call these incidents the fault of the church would effectively render religion in general for everything done in its name, no matter what other factors may be at play. To me, that's a bit like blaming video games and heavy metal for the crazed, murderous rampages of those that espouse them.

[_beastie]

Then I'm sure you can help me out.

If a policeman chases down a speeding driver and gives him a ticket, is that policeman a hypocrite? After all, the policeman had to break the speed limit to catch the speeding driver, right?

Most people would say no. He's not a hypocrite because the cases are not morally equivalent, for various reasons. But the point is that if you describe the policeman's behaviour and the other driver's behaviour in the right "broad brush" terms, it is possible to pretend that they are.

Do you seriously view yourself as the police officer simply catching a speeding driver?

You believe you were justified not only in making extreme statements about people who “lie” about the church’s involvement in the destruction of their marriage, while holding to a hyper-technical definition of “church” as in the formal guidelines, while ignoring that the “church” is more than formal guidelines, it is people acting within their understanding of their religion, and some of those same people said on the original Z thread that apostasy alone is justification for divorce, but you were justified in using the Gino case to demonstrate your point even though the Gino case did not demonstrate the point you were trying to make.

Actually I understand it quite well, so as amusing as it is to watch you(!) try to teach me(!) a lesson in English, I think we'll skip it and cut to the chase.

LOL! Yes, the audacity of beastie (!) trying to teach PAHORAN (!) a lesson in English.

So let’s look more closely at the term “polemic” and compare it, point by point, to what you were engaging in. We’ll return the previously linked wiki explanation.

A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue.

Was Pahoran trying to establish the superiority of his point of view? Absolutely.

Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy.

Did Pahoran have a thesis? Why yes, and it was, to quote Pahoran:

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….It's only those who do make it that are lying thereby….My experience is that the person telling the pack of lies that "the Church broke up my marriage (sob)" either has committed adultery, was abusive or is a miserable anti-mormon tyrant.

by the way, I have no doubt Pahoran will express outrage that I dared to claim this was his thesis, although I simply quoted his own words.

However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view.

Was Pahoran refuting an opposing point of view? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, he was refuting the point of view that the church is sometimes culpable in the dissolution of marriages between believers and apostates.
Now what was that about gnawing off your own arm rather than admit you are wrong?

Pahoran was engaging in polemics. It’s simple and clear.

[_beastie]

Hypocrisy is not about the definitions of words; it's about (1) the moral distance between a person's pretensions and actions, or (2) motes and beams: the moral equivalence between what an accuser does, and what he criticises an accused person for.

If your ancient vendetta against me means anything at all, it means that you think my two-sentence hand-wave at the Gino Manna case, as just one of a list of briefly-mentioned cases, is somehow morally equivalent to the deliberately crafted piece of demagoguery put together by DrWertlos.

“Ancient vendetta?” I have brought this up each time you accused Dr. W of such horrendous behavior that he no longer could have any credibility, ever. Pretty mild vendetta.

Now: if it makes you happy, I will accept that I could have been kinder, more sensitive and more PC in my characterisations of the people who blame the Church for marital and/or family disasters that the Church did not cause. It is fair and reasonable to take into account the fact that people who are hurting, for whatever reason, are not necessarily going to be fully rational in their assessment of the causes of their pain. I would like you to consider the fact that such kindness and sensitivity about them would not, and still does not, impact my underlying point in any way. People have chosen to blame the Church, but the Church was not at fault.

So if your point is so simple, why did you clutter it with all the garbage about evil apostates really being adulterers, abusers, and anti-mormon tyrants? Oh, I know why: you’re Pahoran. Associating apostates with the worst known human behaviors has been your shtick as long as I’ve known you.

Moreover, your point isn’t simply that people have chosen to blame the church, but the church was not at fault. Your point was that every time someone choose to blame the church, the church was not at fault.

However, what are we to do about DrWertlos? If he stops blaming the doctrines of the Church for the irrational actions of a mentally ill mother, his ghastly libel immediately breaks down. He immediately, completely and forever loses the ability to claim that it represents a valid reason to leave the Church, which was the sole reason for him mentioning it in the first place.

I’m going to address his points in my response to him.

Now: as I said above, it is always possible to describe two actions as if they were morally equivalent. All it takes is sufficent determination, and there's no question that you've got that. However, if you really want to show that they are, then you need to engage the similarities and differences between them. So far you've shown yourself invincibly reluctant to even try.

I earlier mentioned the case of "The Holy Child of La Guardia," an odious anti-Semitic libel in which Jews were accused of murdering a child and eating it for Passover dinner. The piece of vile Dreck produced by DrWertlos may well be the 21st century equivalent of that.

I certainly have demonstrated why your actions were morally equivalent. But I will briefly summarize, just to leave you no excuse.

There was no compelling reason to refer to the Gino case at all. The Gino case did not even adequately demonstrate the point you were trying to make for the following reasons:

1. There was no-one “lying” about the church’s involvement in the dissolution of Gino’s marriage. You argued long and hard in the MAD thread that you never intended to identify “Gino” as the liar who was secretly an abuser. I suppose that if you had intended to identify Gino then the omission of his serious mental illness would be too obviously problematic. So you, instead, say that Joseph, was your object lesson.
2. Joseph did not “lie” about the church’s involvement in his brother’s problems. He stated reality as he understood it. As even you admit, he had reasons for that understanding, given his own brother utilized LDS ideas to justify his actions.
3. Without the presence of a “liar”, this becomes very poor support for your thesis. Unless, of course, you’re now going to claim that your thesis had nothing to do with how people who blame the church are always lying, and adulterers, abusers, and tyrants to boot.
4. Not only did you persist in using this case to demonstrate your thesis when it did not, but you were cold-hearted in your treatment of Joseph in attempting to tag HIM as the object lesson. This was a grieving man who described reality as he understood it. He had just undergone a tragedy beyond most of our understandings, and you use him as an “object lesson” when the case isn’t even a good demonstration of your point to begin with.

Knowing your history of associating the worst possible human behavior with apostates, I remain convinced that the only reason you mentioned this case at all was to be able to say the line:

the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it

This summary isn’t even accurate. It would be more accurate to say “the mentally ill husband who had been excommunicated but still retained at least some measure of belief in Mormonism murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it, while referring to LDS ideas to justify his actions.”

Does anyone here doubt that if a critic had made such a summary of the event Pahoran would have been the first to loudly call “foul”, and to probably insist that critic lost all credibility?

[_beastie]

Dr. W,

I apologize for not responding to your questions earlier. I was busy with Pahoran, but, at this point, view that conversation as over for obvious reasons.

As to "exploiting" the Christine Jonson tragedy, I was using it as an example of how unfounded belief, especially in demonstrably false truth claims, can lead to unintended consequences that can be fatal. My comments were "exploitation" of the tragedy to the same extent that pointing out the religion-rooted motivation for the suicides of gay young LDS men is "exploitation". Some would simply call it facing the facts.

I tried to explain this to you the first time this came up on MAD. When someone is mentally ill, it’s not just “unfounded beliefs” that can lead to unintended, even fatal, consequences. It can be completely justified beliefs. I earlier used the atheist example. Let’s say that instead of being a believing Mormon, Christine had been an atheist. In the grips of depression, she may have believed she could never adequately parent her children and there was no one else who could do so, either, so they’d be better off dead. As an atheist, she has no reason to fear or dread death, of herself or others, so killing herself and her children may seem more merciful.

Wouldn’t you be able to recognize that it wasn’t her atheism that caused the fatal consequences, but her altered state of mind?

Now to your question:

"Assuming that you have children and that you love your children, if you had the chance to insure that your children inherited the Celestial Kingdom, when you knew that you would not and could not inherit the Celestial Kingdom, would you deny your children this greatest of all blessings?"

I hope you notice in my posts that I did point out to Pahoran that you were correct in that, according to LDS theology, Christine’s children are, indeed, in the CK. You are correct about her reasoning, if the summary of her story is correct. But here’s the breakdown. I agree with Pahoran here:

The notion that any living person can be correctly certain that they will never be eligible to inherit the Celestial Kingdom is in all respects contrary to LDS doctrine. The opportunity for repentance is always before us, and "Christine Jonsen" would have understood that, had her mind been working properly.

That is just what I was going to reply, but did not have time to do so this morning in my rush to get to work. Christine’s logic is all dependent on “WHEN YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT INHERIT THE CK”. It was her mental illness that led her to conclude as much. The goal of the LDS church is not just individual exaltation, but FAMILIAL unity within that exaltation.

[_beastie]

It is a dangerous thing to lead a schizophrenic person to believe that the voice in his/her head is that of the lord or the holy ghost. I've seen examples of bizarre experiences being recounted by mentally ill members on home teaching visits and in testimony meetings. In my experience, these people are often left to their delusions so long as the experiences motivate them to continue belief in the church. There are times when the magical aspects of the faith can become all too real to those incapable of applying a certain degree of skepticism to their own religious experiences.

That said, to call these incidents the fault of the church would effectively render religion in general for everything done in its name, no matter what other factors may be at play. To me, that's a bit like blaming video games and heavy metal for the crazed, murderous rampages of those that espouse them.

I agree completely, and that may be why Gino's brother said the church made him worse.

[_Pahoran]

Do you seriously view yourself as the police officer simply catching a speeding driver?

I see that, once again, I have vastly overestimated your intelligence.

Therefore, I shall slow it down and take you through it step by step.

1. A driver breaks the speed limit by 20km/hr.
2. In order to catch him, a policeman breaks the speed limit by 30 km/hr.
3. If we wanted to take a "Beastly" view of this, we could say: "Aha! That policeman broke the speed limit, just like the other driver did! He's a hypocrite!"
4. However, there are sigificant factors in play that make the policeman's action not morally equivalent to the offender's action.

Note, please, that I am not saying that exactly the same factors are in play here. This is an an analogy, Beastie. Do you understand "analogy?"

What I am saying is that -- just like the case described above -- it is possible, if one is sufficiently determined (as you clearly are) to craft descriptions of my argument, and the DrWertlos argument, to make them superficially appear similar. However, a more careful look at the cases reveals that they are not in any regard morally equivalent.

I refer you, once again, to my previous post explaining why:

Yet again:

1. I briefly mentioned the Manna case as merely one of a number of examples where the Church had been wrongly accused of causing a family breakup.
   
2. No part of my argument relied upon misrepresenting Gino Manna's irrational actions as the normal or logical product of apostate/ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon beliefs or practices. At no time did I state or imply that apostates/ex-Mormons/anti-Mormons are somehow prone to murderous rampages.
   
3. On the contrary, Gino's mental illness (and abandonment of his medication) provides sufficient explanation for all his actions. This actually reinforced my point about the causes of the tragedy not being found in the teachings of the Church or the actions of those of its members who are making a good-faith effort to follow those teachings.
   
4. And furthermore, the entire thrust of my argument was to defend the Church of Jesus Christ against calumny, not to calumniate anyone else. Granted that my defence may well have been worded in terms that criticised attackers for making such attacks (and I see nothing wrong with having done so) the fact remains that my argument was defensive, i.e. apologetic (in the classic sense) and not offensive, i.e. polemical.

By contrast with all of that:

1. DrWertlos made a meal of what he called the "Christine Jonson" case. He claimed to have had personal knowledge of it at the time it happened. It was the backbone of his apostate exit narrative. (Since he only knew her by a pseudonym that had been made up by a writer years after the event, which pseudonym he consistently misspelled, and not by the true name that had appeared in the papers at the time, he was clearly lying about that.)
   
2. His entire argument relied upon misrepresenting "Christine's" irrational actions as the logical product of Latter-day Saint doctrines and beliefs. At every point of the discussion he adamantly maintained that accepting LDS teaching logically leads to murderous rampages.
   
3. When confronted by the fact of "Christine's" mental state, he tried to deny or downplay any role it might have played. In response to the rather obvious fact that her case was an outlier that did not reflect normative LDS practice, He stubbornly argued that she really "believed it all," as President Hinckley said was essential, while other Mormons were merely cynical pragmatic compromisers.
   
4. And furthermore, the entire thrust of his argument was to calumniate the Church, and not to defend anything otherwise under attack. Granted that my very just criticsm of his vile tactics may have forced him onto the defensive -- as well it should -- the fact remains that his argument was fundamentally offensive, i.e. polemical, and no part of it was apologetic.

I notice that you have not chosen to address this; reasons for this do rather easily occur to me. Instead, you prefer to create your own list.

I certainly have demonstrated why your actions were morally equivalent. But I will briefly summarize, just to leave you no excuse.

There was no compelling reason to refer to the Gino case at all. The Gino case did not even adequately demonstrate the point you were trying to make for the following reasons:

1. There was no-one “lying” about the church’s involvement in the dissolution of Gino’s marriage. You argued long and hard in the MAD thread that you never intended to identify “Gino” as the liar who was secretly an abuser. I suppose that if you had intended to identify Gino then the omission of his serious mental illness would be too obviously problematic. So you, instead, say that Joseph, was your object lesson.

You are misrepresenting the discussion, as of course you must in order to salvage anything from it. I argued -- and demonstrated from the original quotes that YOU provided -- that my brief two-sentence first mention of the case was not the sum of my thoughts on the matter. Gino, being dead, was in no position to blame anyone else for anything. Of course his brother was the source of the false accusations against the Church.

And you are diligently misrepresenting what you are pleased to call my "thesis," although of course I never formulated it as such. This was a free-flowing conversation with a number of participants. Cobbling together remarks made to various people at different stages of the discussion and presenting the pastiche as if it represented a "thesis" is egregiously dishonest. Had I actually written a formal thesis which I was prepared to defend, it would have resembled something like the following:

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused of being at fault for the breakup of families, or other family tragedies perpetrated by people acting contrary to the unequivocal and well-known teachings of the Church, those accusations are invariably false.

That is my "thesis" on this subject, Beastie. If you misrepresent this fact at any point in the future, you will be consciously lying.

2. Joseph did not “lie” about the church’s involvement in his brother’s problems. He stated reality as he understood it. As even you admit, he had reasons for that understanding, given his own brother utilized LDS ideas to justify his actions.

Yes, I am prepared to be charitable to Joseph on this point. That does not, however, render his false accusations against the Church true. The Church was still blamed when it was not at fault. My basic premise remains sound.

3. Without the presence of a “liar”, this becomes very poor support for your thesis. Unless, of course, you’re now going to claim that your thesis had nothing to do with how people who blame the church are always lying, and adulterers, abusers, and tyrants to boot.

See above.

4. Not only did you persist in using this case to demonstrate your thesis when it did not, but you were cold-hearted in your treatment of Joseph in attempting to tag HIM as the object lesson. This was a grieving man who described reality as he understood it. He had just undergone a tragedy beyond most of our understandings, and you use him as an “object lesson” when the case isn’t even a good demonstration of your point to begin with.

Again, see above.

And now, Beastie, it is your turn. I have demonstrated why my treatment of that case is not morally equivalent to what DrWertlos did with "Christine Jonsen." You need to engage my argument, or you fail by default.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_DrW]

And now, Beastie, it is your turn. I have demonstrated why my treatment of that case is not morally equivalent to what DrWertlos did with "Christine Jonsen." You need to engage my argument, or you fail by default.

Regards,
Pahoran

For those who can't wait to see who and how Pahoran insults next, "Wertlos" is German for "worthless".

Someone is certainly failing here (and it sure isn't beastie). It's not by default, really. They apparently just can't help themselves.

[_Pahoran]

And now, Beastie, it is your turn. I have demonstrated why my treatment of that case is not morally equivalent to what DrWertlos did with "Christine Jonsen." You need to engage my argument, or you fail by default.

Regards,
Pahoran

For those who can't wait to see who and how Pahoran insults next, "Wertlos" is German for "worthless".

Why, so it is.

Someone is certainly failing something here. It's not really by default. They just can't seem to help themselves (and it's not beastie).

That's right; it's you.

As long as you refuse to resile from your malicious, demonstrably dishonest attack upon the Church of Jesus Christ -- which attack may well be the nastiest bit of hate propaganda since the anti-Semitic "Blood libel" -- then you are failing as a human being.

The very best thing you can do for yourself is to admit that you were wrong.

You sort of tried once before; I'd recommend that this time you do it without any qualifications or provisos.

Your argument is wertlos. It has always been wertlos.

It is entirely original to you, and you stubbornly refuse to abandon it.

So why shouldn't you be saddled with it? Who else should?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_DrW]

Your argument is wertlos. It has always been wertlos.

It is entirely original to you, and you stubbornly refuse to abandon it.

So why shouldn't you be saddled with it? Who else should?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran,

Although you represent the best of LDS apologetics, with a unique style that is no doubt greatly appreciated by the higher-ups in Mormondom, perhaps you would still allow me to make a small suggestion. If you are going to improve in your craft, you might want to spend less time thinking up insults to others and more time reading what rational authors on the subject of religion have to say in order to better defend your unfounded belief against damnable reason and pesky logic.

Since you seem blisfully unaware of the unintended consequences argument when it comes to the societal cost of religion, and before I start a list for you that would include the already mentioned suicide of young gay LDS men, Utah's demonstrated affinity for internet porn, Utah's highest in the nation consumption of anti-depressants, and a significant portion of responsibility for the loss of life from AIDS in Africa (just to name a few contemporary examples), I would recommend that you try reading some reason and fact-based work on religion as opposed to the myth and faith-based materials normally allowed Mormons.

Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris would be a good place to start.

You will find this little book quite informative. It is short, written in plain language especially for folks like yourself, and will relieve you of your misconception that the fatal unintended consequences argument against the nonsense of religion, of which the Christine Jonson tragedy is but one small example, is an argument that originated with me.