DiscussMormonism.com

I'm sure you all remember the good old days when Juliann talked all the time about how ex-mormons construct "apostate narratives" that implicitly can't be trusted because they are formulated with an agenda in mind. These, presumably, stood in contradistinction to the apostasy narratives spun by the Church in order to vilify departing souls. Well, a day or two ago Juliann made an interesting remark on a homosexuality thread that brought all these good memories rushing back to the surface for me in a PTSD-style flashback. Just thought I'd share it with you all:

The opposition is likely to pull in a lot of Hollywood money now that they have lost their lead but I would be surprised if they can undo real narratives of real events simply by calling the Yes group liars and fear mongers.

Here we find that Juliann believes there are anti-Prop-8 narratives and then there are "real narratives of real events." And of course, she is the one in possession of the real narrative. When I called her on this, she pointed to the events of her narrative (which incidentally had been presented by Smac in a distorted way) as its objective validation:

<sigh> Are you questioning the authenticity of The King and King and the field trip to the teacher's SSM? Such narratives may be insignificant to you but they are not insignifiant to others. Diversity.

Of course, someone with Juliann's education should know that narratives are not merely objective collections of objective events. Rather, they are human tellings of events-- events that have themselves been selected and arranged in order to produce a larger meaning. Juliann's "authentic" events have no significance until they are embedded in a narrative in which a "no" on Prop 8 leads to mass public-school indoctrination. She is creating a narrative, whether she likes it or not. My narrative is that her narrative is an incomplete one designed to elicit fear and a knee-jerk political reaction. And-- voila-- the sociological polemic comes back to bite the hand that feeds it.

Of course, Juliann can't actually bring herself to admit this. Instead she accuses me of attempting to "counteract reality" by making "ugly accusations" and attempting to redefine words as part of a "consistently empty attack response". I did none of those things, of course. But hey: Juliann's the keeper of the "real" narratives, so who am I to argue?

-Chris

Uh Huh, real narratives? Honestly, it seems to me she's completely changed her position, it's very possible given how long its been since I've read anything she's written.

Now, I was kind of on the way out during the "apostate narrative" thing, if I remember right, but in general, her "narrative" thesis had been:

-affirm the consequent and condemn the enlightenment as Christian fundamentalism.

-demonstrate that all those who believe in objectivity are confined to their own "narrative"

-it's somehow "better" that people like her are trapped in their own narrative, simply because they know and admit they are in a narrative, and admit their assumptions (as if they all have perfect access to their own very deeply seated assumptions in the first place)

Now she's being a little more honest it sounds like these days by just admitting that she assumes her position represents reality and everyone else is living a fiction of their own creation.

Which if true, means the universe is a really, really f'd up and logically incoherent place

I doubt if Juliann has altered her position in any way on "apostate narratives". She's just always been particularly resistant to self-awareness, and hence tends to fall into these inconsistencies.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

Real events: A statement made by someone with whom Juliann agrees.
Narrative: A statement made by someone with whom Juliann disagrees.

Does that about cover it?

Is it just me or is being a relativist/constructionist/discourse analytic (not sure what variety she is) Mormon a bit of an odd combination?

I know its rude to comment on someone I haven't (virtually) met, but the mix of fundamentalist conservative religion and pseudo-intellectual post-modernity would make one's head explode wouldn't it?

Is it just me or is being a relativist/constructionist/discourse analytic (not sure what variety she is) Mormon a bit of an odd combination?

I know its rude to comment on someone I haven't (virtually) met, but the mix of fundamentalist conservative religion and pseudo-intellectual post-modernity would make one's head explode wouldn't it?

It's a bit of an apologetic fad in recent years to try to turn post-modernism into an argument for faith. The most frequent route this argument takes is to argue that since all perspectives are on more or less equal ground, there should be just as much room in the academy for a Christian perspective as for any other. (This argument is typical of scholars like Mark Noll and George Marsden.) But the argument-from-postmodernism has taken far more annoying forms as well, as in the notable cases of Alan Goff, David Bohn, John Milbank, and Alister McGrath. I recently read a book called Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World in which McGrath went off on an extremely bizarre pseudo-postmodern rant, by the end of which I wanted to hurl the book angrily across the room. They really only want to employ postmodernism to critique others' positions; they treat their own as immune. And since their opponents rarely have the patience to sit down and point this out, they actually get away with it.

Juliann's use of the postmodern was only ever opportunistic. And poorly understood.

I think undermining the veracity of a persons' story, is much like the marketing tactic of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about your competitor's product. You do maximal damage then go out and peddle you own product.

The interesting thing to me has always been Julianne's jumped-to conclusion that the mere fact that a sociologist could predict that some apostates from cult-like religious movements would tell "atrocity narratives" and whatnot upon their departure, somehow rendered those tales meaningless and automatically false.

What exactly should one expect a former Moonie to say once they realize that they've been had?

What exactly should one expect a Jehovah's Witness to say once they realize the JWs are full of crap?

What exactly should one expect a Hare Krishna to say once they see that it's all BS?

These "atrocity tales" are being told by people who leave mind-controlling/indoctrinating religious movements that work very hard to fill one's head with false worldviews that insulate their memberships from the reality that their religion isn't actually true. When someone sees their way through this and leaves, and has to deal with all the people they knew cutting them off, "disconnecting" from them, possibly harassing and stalking them, what else are we to expect these apostates to say? That hey, thanks for all the jello?

Julianne, here's a clue for you: apostates from false-worldview-peddling, strongly mentally conditioning/indoctrinating religious movements have had their minds put through the ringer. Their descriptions of these things once they see through it all and leave these movements are going to be filled with descriptions of how, wait for it, their minds have been put through the ringer.

Julianne, why do you assume that the mere fact that the coming forth of such tales from apostates can be predicted renders them not true?

I would think that the prediction "apostasy from a mind-controlling, cultish religion will likely precipitate a strongly-opinioned denunciation of the methods and worldview of said religion on the part of the apostate" should be seen as about as obvious as the prediction "dropping this egg from a height of five feet over the floor will inevitably result in the egg breaking and splattering its contents over the tiles."

Dr. Shades wrote:Okay, let me see if I have this straight:

Real events: A statement made by someone with whom Juliann agrees.
Narrative: A statement made by someone with whom Juliann disagrees.

Does that about cover it?

That's how I interpret it. I haven't read her "thesis" on narratives, but I assume it takes her pages to say what you summed up in two sentences.