Evidence of Mormon Brainwashing

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

guy wrote: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?


Not necessarily. As a parent, if my daughter came to me with material that she wanted to read that I had questions about, I would want to read it first so that I would be prepared to discuss the contents with her. Communication is important. How can you discuss something when you haven't read it?
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

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. In the following paragraph he posted, look at what he left out, which I have bolded.

"The process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is often used pejoratively. However, instruction in the basic principles of a science, or the methodology of a profession, can also be called indoctrination, in the sense that people do not necessarily question or critically examine them. From the specific perspective of some people, like the people who don't critically examine basic principles of a science or methodology of a profession, the word does not necessarily have negative connotations."


Ah yes Charity. I left that out to purposefully create a cognitive error, and to only see what I wanted to see and to leave the rest out. You caught me! Red handed even!

All the editor for that particular piece was stating, was in fact, that anything could be considered indoctrination. I see no cognitive error, only you trying to make a mountain out of Cumorah hill.

What infymus quoted is from the wiki page. But he didn't give you the disclaimer wiki included with this article, to wit:.

"This article or section has multiple issues: It needs additional references or sources for verification. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. It may not present a
worldwide view of the subject."


Oh God Charity that’s f*n rich. How about we place that same disclaimer square on the cover of Joe’s Book of Mormon? Better yet, why don’t you edit both Wiki pages and put a disclaimer that in order to more fully understand indoctrination or brain washing, one must fast and pray for guidance from the Holy Ghost AFTER they have paid a full tithe?

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.


What the hell are you talking about? Did I not state “Both can be found on WIKI.” ? How is this showing disdain for fellow posters? I think you’re talking out your ass because quite frankly, Wiki is an excellent source – while not definitive – for finding information. It’s up to you to cross reference and search down more resources – except OOPS, sorry Charity, you’re completely unfamiliar with that concept because well, if the Holy Ghost burns your buxom, it must be true.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:Scratch, I really doubt somehow that the mother was that cunning when she wrote the article.


Who said anything about her "cunning" in regards to her composition of the article? Besides, I noted in an earlier post that there is a good chance that the mom was completely oblivious to the pressure / influence she was exerting. This often seems to be the case with LDS mothers. (At least in my admittedly limited experience.)
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

liz3564 wrote: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.


Not to interject into your ongoing conversation in this particular area of the thread, however, Mormonism has a long history of teaching that certain materials (film, TV, movie, books) will cause “the spirit to flee”. Mormons teach FPRS to each other wherein when they opened “a book”, the felt “the spirit flee the room”. Some have even claimed after doing some “deed” (adultery, or the big “M”), they actually heard some spirit or Satan himself “laughing” and the room going dark.

IMHO, I have seen it time and time again wherein the LDS Corporation will use this “spirit fleeing” as a spiritual threat. Don’t look, don’t ask, don’t read, don’t see, and don’t view – otherwise. It’s purely a spiritual threat.

So I can see how Scratch can arrive at that conclusion although there is no evidence given in the article to prove it.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

liz3564 wrote:
guy wrote: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?


Not necessarily. As a parent, if my daughter came to me with material that she wanted to read that I had questions about, I would want to read it first so that I would be prepared to discuss the contents with her. Communication is important. How can you discuss something when you haven't read it?


Liz, that was me, not Guy. Guy has made it clear that he does not believe the church brainwashes.

But Liz, the point of dispute wasn't the fact that the mother wanted to read it first. In fact, your argument folds back on itself and vindicates mine, interestingly enough. Because if communication is important, and if discussion is a two-way street, then we must ask, how can the mother discuss something with the daughter that the daughter hasn't read? Indeed, how can the daughter have a discussion about something she hasn't read?
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.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Gadianton wrote:Indeed, how can the daughter have a discussion about something she hasn't read?

She read the Cliff's Notes?

That's what my classmates did in high school.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Infymus wrote:
liz3564 wrote: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.


Not to interject into your ongoing conversation in this particular area of the thread, however, Mormonism has a long history of teaching that certain materials (film, TV, movie, books) will cause “the spirit to flee”. Mormons teach FPRS to each other wherein when they opened “a book”, the felt “the spirit flee the room”. Some have even claimed after doing some “deed” (adultery, or the big “M”), they actually heard some spirit or Satan himself “laughing” and the room going dark.

IMHO, I have seen it time and time again wherein the LDS Corporation will use this “spirit fleeing” as a spiritual threat. Don’t look, don’t ask, don’t read, don’t see, and don’t view – otherwise. It’s purely a spiritual threat.

So I can see how Scratch can arrive at that conclusion although there is no evidence given in the article to prove it.


Have you seen "The Hills Have Eyes"? For entertainment, the movie includes one of these mutants who RAPES one woman while another mutant holds a gun to another woman's head while he breastfeeds off her. I do not think ANYONE needs to see that, and I see NOTHING wrong with an organization trying to tell you that such movies are unnessesary and ugly.

Your attempt to demonize Mormonism is so strong, your blinded. Plus, I hate to tell you this, but "no watching R-rated movies" is NOT on the temple recommend interview. I have seen plenty of R-rated movies and still actively going to the temple. Guess their brainwashing mind control needs work.

JMS
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

jskains wrote:Have you seen "The Hills Have Eyes"? For entertainment, the movie includes one of these mutants who RAPES one woman while another mutant holds a gun to another woman's head while he breastfeeds off her. I do not think ANYONE needs to see that, and I see NOTHING wrong with an organization trying to tell you that such movies are unnessesary and ugly.


My reply had nothing to do with Mormon Inc. stating that a particular print or media is "unnecessary" or "ugly". The premise of the post was to show how Mormonism gains control of members by using spiritual threats. TSCC telling you not to watch "The Hills Have Eyes" due to extreme violence, nudity, scenes of rape, et all, is different than TSCC telling you not to read "No Man Knows My History" because the "spirit may be chased from the room". If you choose not to see that, fine.

Your attempt to demonize Mormonism is so strong, your blinded. Plus, I hate to tell you this, but "no watching R-rated movies" is NOT on the temple recommend interview. I have seen plenty of R-rated movies and still actively going to the temple. Guess their brainwashing mind control needs work.


And your attempts at blasting every poster on this board within your continued whining posts is so strong, you're blinded.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Gadianton wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
guy wrote: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?


Not necessarily. As a parent, if my daughter came to me with material that she wanted to read that I had questions about, I would want to read it first so that I would be prepared to discuss the contents with her. Communication is important. How can you discuss something when you haven't read it?


Liz, that was me, not Guy. Guy has made it clear that he does not believe the church brainwashes.

But Liz, the point of dispute wasn't the fact that the mother wanted to read it first. In fact, your argument folds back on itself and vindicates mine, interestingly enough. Because if communication is important, and if discussion is a two-way street, then we must ask, how can the mother discuss something with the daughter that the daughter hasn't read? Indeed, how can the daughter have a discussion about something she hasn't read?


Sorry, Gad. Lack of sleep is catching up with me. LOL

If the dispute isn't with the mother reading it first, then we have no dispute. I already stated that I felt that the mother should let the daughter read the book. I just think that it's perfectly OK for her to read it first.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Charity....

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?


Come now Charity... I'm quite sure there is NO one on this board who isn't smart enough to click on WIKI if they want to further investigate. I'm equally sure there is NO one on this board who isn't smart enough to KNOW that WIKI is not the expert on everything, that there are all sorts of definitions and interpretations and opinions on the topic, and Infymus wasn't trying to pretend otherwise.

You don't think infymus is trying to hoodwink us with that brainwashing stuff?


Where in the world do you get such stuff.... CLEARLY STATING THE SOURCE is not "hoodwinking". Putting the information in a QUOTE BOX is not trying to deceive. And using WIKI to help in a discussion is not in any way suggesting it is the ultimate source for information, or the expert opinion, or some grand authority.

Who in the world (or at least on this discussion board) doesn't understand how WIKI works? Or, actually, now that I think about it maybe you do not know? Maybe this is the problem.

Do you understand that articles on WIKI are constantly updated, sourced, challenged, revised? Do you know that WIKI is basically a collective effort to continually provide new or more accurate information? Always changing?

No one thinks WIKI is the definitive, one and only truth. It is a great resource, filled with information, and very helpful in providing information.

No, Charity, Infymus was not trying to "hookwink" anyone.

:-)


~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post Reply