Evidence of Mormon Brainwashing

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

charity wrote:Infymus has engaged in two types of really common cognitive errors. First, he looks at something, picks out what he wants to see, and disregards the rest. "

Holy hypocrisy Batman! Charity, news alert. We all do this, but some of us more than others. You, for example, are a prime example of the "more than others" category.

This doesn't make Infymus and less guilty (if indeed he's guilty), but it should moderate to a degree the smug self-righteousness with which you accuse him.


charity wrote:And Infymus talks about deception and thought control. He also shows a great disdain for his fellow posters. He thinks we can't find out that his knowledge base is wiki, and that we can't recognize what he is doing. We caught you. Try to pull the wool over someone else's eyes next time.


Another news alert, Charity. A lot of our "knowledge" is based on sources, such as Wiki, or other limited sources. We all possess limited time to search, read, and process information. Wiki is convenient and, on average (as I undersand) reasonably accurate. This is not an academic discussion board in which detailed references are required for all arguments we make. You make your fair share, no make that your disproportionate share, of ill-informed arguments. At the very least be cognizant of this before you barrel in all high and mighty.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Mister Scratch wrote:
liz3564 wrote:If that mother had read Judy Blume's "Forever", she would have probably fainted. LOL

I actually don't think there was anything wrong with the mother reading the book first. When you have a minor child and you are concerned about content that child may be processing, there is nothing wrong with reading the material first, or previewing a movie first, etc.

Did the mother forbid the daughter from reading the book? That's not how I interpreted it. Maybe I'm missing something:

I read the book, which as I remember is about a young girl, Margaret, who is trying to find God and goes from one church to another, but never finds Him. She never really resolves her search; the book seemed atheistic to me (although not nearly as forceful as Pullman’s books). I sat Clarissa down and described the book and my feelings on it; she decided not to read it and returned it to the library the next day.


According the quote here, the mother explained her feelings, and then the daughter made the decision not to read the book. It didn't appear to me that the mother said, "Don't read it." It sounded more like she said, "I read it. I don't agree with the philosophy of the book but you can read it if you want to."

If that is how it was presented, I really don't see anything wrong.


Given that the mother says that she described her "feelings" about it, I doubt very much that she said, "I don't agree with the philosophy of the book." I am willing to bet that she said something more along the lines of, "I felt the spirit leave me," or, "This is a dark book," or something like that. The mother clearly did not want her daughter to read the book, and so I doubt very much that she presented it in such neutral terms.

Then again, in my experience, LDS mothers often tend to think they are granting free agency when, in fact, they are placing pressures on their kids in various ways, even if they don't mean to.


You're reading things into what was said, Scratch. I suppose she might have said, "It's a dark book," or "I felt the spirit leave me," but there is no indication in what was written that she said either of these things. Here is the full account:

I was a young mother with a two-year-old at that time, and the thought that my calling was to “enrich, protect, and guard my home” really made me think deeply how I could possibly do that in an increasingly wicked world.

Ten years later that same two-year-old, Clarissa, came home from school with a book by Judy Blume, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. I had heard about Ms. Blume and in particular this book; her writing and thinking didn’t seem in line with what I wanted my children to read or learn. But I also didn’t think it would be productive to just forbid her to read it. So, I made a deal with her, I would read the book first and then we would discuss it and she could decide whether or not to read it herself.

I read the book, which as I remember is about a young girl, Margaret, who is trying to find God and goes from one church to another, but never finds Him. She never really resolves her search; the book seemed atheistic to me (although not nearly as forceful as Pullman’s books). I sat Clarissa down and described the book and my feelings on it; she decided not to read it and returned it to the library the next day.


Note the bolded emphasis (mine). The mother had heard things about the book that she didn't agree with. She didn't out and out deny her daughter the right to read the book. She simply wanted to read it first. She clearly states that after the book was read and discussed, she would leave it to her daughter to decide whether or not to read it.

The whole point of the story was that her daughter made the choice not to read the book on her own.

The mother has stated that she would have let her daughter read the book had she chosen to.

I don't think it's fair to immediately come to the conclusion that the mother was lying.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

guy sajer wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Oh but that's not true Nehor. That's the ultimate brainwashing ploy. Make it look like the inductee is given liberties and choices while stacking the deck behind the scenes. I think you might be able to rate the strength of cult oppression by the number of times it has to emphasize your freedom, or freeagency.


My wife likes to argue that she has perfect freedom to think what she wants. I don't believe this, and her behavior belies it. She has created an artificial intellectual barrier beyond which she will not allow herself to venture. This barrier is not one of her own, free, independent choosing but one that has been inculcated in her by decades of indoctrination. She, and many other believers, live in an intellectual prison of sorts that they have constructed with bricks, bars, and mortar provided them by Mormon Inc.

This whole process of using indoctrination to transform free thinking into some kind of sin, or at least character defect, is one of the single most insidious practices of dogmatic religion.


She can think what she wants. She's not a victim. I have no doubt there is a barrier she put in place but she is the one who chose to put it there and she has the option to remove it. I refuse to watch porn. Is this an artificial intellectual barrier? There are certain authors I will not read. Another barrier? When was the last time some of you critics read the Book of Mormon? Is this yet another artificial intellectual barrier?

Free thinking means you can choose what you want to put into your mind and choose what you think about. It isn't a pure state to which only a few aspire and fewer attain.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_quaker
_Emeritus
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 pm

Post by _quaker »

If trying to influence someone's attitude towards any topic, idea, religion, book, or anything prior to their viewing it is brainwashing then I think that at least 100% of the regular posters on this thread are guilty.

It's pretty hard to communicate without bias 100% of the time.

That's not saying that the way the lady handled the situation was ideal. I think it's better than 80% of parents would do today. Tell me, Gadianton, and all the other people who make this seem like the biggest crime ever committed, what would you tell your kid if they started investigating the Mormon Church? Would you sit down and tell them your feelings beforehand and let them make a decision? Would your 'feelings' be free of bias? If you conveyed 1% of the bias and spite you do here (probably similar to what the post in the post did, though from a different perspective) would you consider it brainwashing?
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

truth dancer wrote:Charity...

I'm really hoping you are joking but I have a feeling you are not.

He thinks we can't find out that his knowledge base is wiki, and that we can't recognize what he is doing. We caught you. Try to pull the wool over someone else's eyes next time.


Did you not notice the quotes in LARGE quote boxes? Did you miss where Infymus clearly wrote, "Both can be found on Wiki?"

I'm pretty sure no one here doesn't know how to click on Wiki. I think we all know that WIKI is not some ultimate authority on anything. It is a great resource but we all know how it works.

OK, you were joking right? ;-)

~dancer~


Sure we can click on wiki, but do we? Did anyone else post after his "brainwashing" post that even wiki considers it unreliable? How many of you checked it out? Or did you just rely on infymus' good intentions and intellectual honesty and wiki's general usefulness? A sort of encyclopedia for dummies. Do you check the citations on the wiki?

You don't think infymus is trying to hoodwink us with that brainwashing stuff? As already mentioned, the whole concept of brainwashing died out with the commie panic.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Bro. Quaker,

I'm happy to entertain your objection,

Tell me, Gadianton, and all the other people who make this seem like the biggest crime ever committed, what would you tell your kid if they started investigating the Mormon Church? Would you sit down and tell them your feelings beforehand and let them make a decision?


First of all, you might want to start out by comparing apples with apples. After all, the child in this anecdote didn't come home with a pack of materials from American Atheists to read with the express purpose of possibly making a life commitment to the organization. If my child came home with the Book of Mormon, or any other LDS book that s/he got from the school library, I probably wouldn't even say anything. At most, I'd suggest we both read it and then have a conversation about it.

Would your 'feelings' be free of bias? If you conveyed 1% of the bias and spite you do here (probably similar to what the post in the post did, though from a different perspective) would you consider it brainwashing?


My feelings about the book would most certainly be biased. Which is why, unlike the mother in this story, I would not be so self-deceptive and hopelessly naïve as to stage a Stalinesque mock trial before hand, pretending to my child that I could objectively read and digest the material for her first, relay the material neutrally, and then let the child make her own decision.

You have to really appreciate, Quaker, the subtle brainwashing techniques involved here. Think about it, my friend, if the mother in this story could objectively relate the contents to her daughter, then the daughter might has well have just read it. right?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

charity wrote:
truth dancer wrote:Charity...

I'm really hoping you are joking but I have a feeling you are not.

He thinks we can't find out that his knowledge base is wiki, and that we can't recognize what he is doing. We caught you. Try to pull the wool over someone else's eyes next time.


Did you not notice the quotes in LARGE quote boxes? Did you miss where Infymus clearly wrote, "Both can be found on Wiki?"

I'm pretty sure no one here doesn't know how to click on Wiki. I think we all know that WIKI is not some ultimate authority on anything. It is a great resource but we all know how it works.

OK, you were joking right? ;-)

~dancer~


Sure we can click on wiki, but do we? Did anyone else post after his "brainwashing" post that even wiki considers it unreliable? How many of you checked it out? Or did you just rely on infymus' good intentions and intellectual honesty and wiki's general usefulness? A sort of encyclopedia for dummies. Do you check the citations on the wiki?

You don't think infymus is trying to hoodwink us with that brainwashing stuff? As already mentioned, the whole concept of brainwashing died out with the commie panic.


I don't have time to follow up or read the sources referenced by posters. Unlike you, I have a job. I deal with this inconvenience with the very simple policy of using my own reason and common sense and not taking ANYONE's statement at face value. I am an equal opportunity skeptic.

I think also that I've made it clear that I do not believe that the Mormon Church engages in brainwashing.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

liz3564 wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Given that the mother says that she described her "feelings" about it, I doubt very much that she said, "I don't agree with the philosophy of the book." I am willing to bet that she said something more along the lines of, "I felt the spirit leave me," or, "This is a dark book," or something like that. The mother clearly did not want her daughter to read the book, and so I doubt very much that she presented it in such neutral terms.

Then again, in my experience, LDS mothers often tend to think they are granting free agency when, in fact, they are placing pressures on their kids in various ways, even if they don't mean to.


You're reading things into what was said, Scratch. I suppose she might have said, "It's a dark book," or "I felt the spirit leave me," but there is no indication in what was written that she said either of these things.


Neither is there any indication that her "discussion" with her daughter was in any way "neutral," as you suggested. In fact, what we do know here seems more to point in the direction of my interpretation. Others on the thread have already identified what was at play here: The mother did not want her daughter to read the book, but nevertheless wanted to make it seem as if the daughter herself was making the decision. Very crafty, don't you think?

Here is the full account:

I was a young mother with a two-year-old at that time, and the thought that my calling was to “enrich, protect, and guard my home” really made me think deeply how I could possibly do that in an increasingly wicked world.

Ten years later that same two-year-old, Clarissa, came home from school with a book by Judy Blume, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. I had heard about Ms. Blume and in particular this book; her writing and thinking didn’t seem in line with what I wanted my children to read or learn. But I also didn’t think it would be productive to just forbid her to read it. So, I made a deal with her, I would read the book first and then we would discuss it and she could decide whether or not to read it herself.

I read the book, which as I remember is about a young girl, Margaret, who is trying to find God and goes from one church to another, but never finds Him. She never really resolves her search; the book seemed atheistic to me (although not nearly as forceful as Pullman’s books). I sat Clarissa down and described the book and my feelings on it; she decided not to read it and returned it to the library the next day.


Note the bolded emphasis (mine). The mother had heard things about the book that she didn't agree with. She didn't out and out deny her daughter the right to read the book.


I agree with this. Instead, the mom wanted to figure out a more sneaky way to "trick" the daughter into thinking that she (i.e., the daughter) didn't want to read the book. The mother carefully omits whatever it was that helped to dissuade the daughter from reading the book.

She simply wanted to read it first.


I disagree with the term "simply"---after all, she notes that she had preconceptions about Judy Blume, and that, "her writing and thinking didn’t seem in line with what I wanted my children to read or learn."

She clearly states that after the book was read and discussed, she would leave it to her daughter to decide whether or not to read it.


She also clearly states that, "her writing and thinking didn’t seem in line with what I wanted my children to read or learn." Do you really think that this mother would have allowed for the possibility that her precious daughter might have been "polluted" by the book? Does the reading of the book actually seem like a genuine possibility here, given the mother's low opinion of Judy Blume?

The whole point of the story was that her daughter made the choice not to read the book on her own.


But we don't know that for certain, since we don't know what was said in the midst of their "discussion". The mother obviously did not want her daughter to be exposed to this text, and yet also wanted the daughter to feel as if she was making her own choice.

But the daughter clearly was not given the full choice.

The mother has stated that she would have let her daughter read the book had she chosen to.


She doesn't say that anywhere. She says that the daughter could "decide" if she wanted to read the book, but that is very different from being allowed to read the book.

I don't think it's fair to immediately come to the conclusion that the mother was lying.


I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that the mother way lying.
Last edited by Physics Guy on Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Scratch, I really doubt somehow that the mother was that cunning when she wrote the article.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

quaker wrote:If trying to influence someone's attitude towards any topic, idea, religion, book, or anything prior to their viewing it is brainwashing then I think that at least 100% of the regular posters on this thread are guilty.

It's pretty hard to communicate without bias 100% of the time.

That's not saying that the way the lady handled the situation was ideal. I think it's better than 80% of parents would do today. Tell me, Gadianton, and all the other people who make this seem like the biggest crime ever committed, what would you tell your kid if they started investigating the Mormon Church? Would you sit down and tell them your feelings beforehand and let them make a decision? Would your 'feelings' be free of bias? If you conveyed 1% of the bias and spite you do here (probably similar to what the post in the post did, though from a different perspective) would you consider it brainwashing?


Gad is right; the comparison is not really very apt. The mother in the article didn't even allow *any* investigation at all. For your analogy to work, we would have to say, that the kid mentioned wanting to investigate the LDS Church, and then we, as parents, said, "Okay, let me look into it first, and then we'll talk about it, and you can decide if you want to learn anything else."

The fact that this mother totally cut off the flow of information is, at the very least, a trifle bit Orwellian, imho.
Post Reply