"Gino" and "Christine" (For Beastie)

[_Pahoran]

Case 1:

Some years ago in Australia, a schizophrenic ex-Mormon who was off his medication murdered his family, set his house on fire, and then killed himself. Subsequent to this tragedy, his brother Joseph tried to sue the Church on the basis that it was somehow responsible for driving Gino crazy and destroying his family.

I have frequently observed that when people -- apostates, anti-Mormons or just generally hostile individuals -- accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of "breaking up families" or some such thing, investigation of the facts almost always shows other forces at work. Frequently, the accuser himself bears some or most of the responsibility for the events. Some years ago, in a discussion of this issue, I once rattled off a quick list of a number of such cases, and mentioned the above case in that list. While it is not in every respect typical -- the accuser was neither a party trying to shift blame, nor an apostate/anti-Mormon, but an aggrieved/bereaved relative lashing out -- the general features of the case fit the profile: The Church was blamed. The real cause was closer to the accuser.

Case 2:

Some years ago in Washington State, a mentally ill mother in a fit of depression threw her children from a bridge, killing them. Some years later, a thoroughly unscrupulous anti-Mormon tried to argue that the mother's deranged, irrational act was somehow a logical consequence of the mother's acceptance of LDS doctrine. This argument is an inconscionable, demagogical lie.

On each occasion when I have confronted DrW about his cynical exploitation of that tragedy, Beastie has tried to argue that my treatment of the Manna case and DrW's treatment of the "Christine Jonsen" (not her real name) case are indistinguishable.

Having comprehensively failed, she now wants another bite.

Have at it, Beastie.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Analytics]

Have at it, Beast.

If Pahoran won’t refrain from employing his trademarked style of personal insults, perhaps this discussion should be moved to the Terrestrial forum?

[_Kevin Graham]

The problem here is that Pahoran can never accept the fact that the Church isn't true. He cannot even entertain the possibility, because to do so would be to give in to demonic thinking. That's what Satan wants, according to the Church, so avoid it at all costs. Don't give in to the arm of the flesh and the reasoning of men. The Church has the proper defensive mechanisms in place to shield the rational tendencies of the human mind. So he will never be able to understand the mental/emotional impact this revelation has on some people. For Pahoran, they will always be nothing more than a bunch of dishonorable covenant breakers who had weak faith.

I'm not saying the Church is to blame for such tragedies, just that it is pointless trying to have a discussion on such things when both sides will never agree to a fundamental premise such as this. I doubt Pahoran is even capable of assuming, just for sake of argument, that the Church isn't what it claims to be, and that breaking covenants based on fraud, isn't really dishonorable. Maybe if he could, then he'd be able to understand the psyche of those who have devoted their entire lives to something that they now know to be based on a laundry list of false claims.

[_beastie]

I think this old thread more than adequately addresses this past issue. It also includes links to the former MAD thread.

viewtopic.php?p=250630#p250630

[_moksha]

On the thread that Beastie just referenced, I have to disagree with Sethpayne's suggestion that a beer might do Pahoran some good. I have seen to many mean drunks to believe this.

by the way, in the first case the Church is not culpable since it has no power to induce schizophrenia.

[_Pahoran]

I think this old thread more than adequately addresses this past issue. It also includes links to the former MAD thread.

Which links no longer work.

But Beastie: You said you were willing to discuss "Gino" and "Christine" as long as it was off the anti-Schryver dog-pile thread. I started this thread as an acceptance of your offer.

And now you're reneging?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

The problem here is that Pahoran can never accept blah blah blah

Kevin,

This is completely off-topic. It is utterly irrelevant to the OP and follows from nothing therein.

Kindly indulge your penchant for brodiesque mind-reading on your own thread.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

I think this old thread more than adequately addresses this past issue. It also includes links to the former MAD thread.

Which links no longer work.

But Beastie: You said you were willing to discuss "Gino" and "Christine" as long as it was off the anti-Schryver dog-pile thread. I started this thread as an acceptance of your offer.

And now you're reneging?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Regards,
Pahoran

Here's the link to the new board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/442 ... riticisms/

I am discussing it by providing links to the old threads. If you have something new to say, then say it. Why should I repeat what's already been said?

On the old threads, you finally admitted that you used "imprecise" and "fuzzy" language. And now you're back at square 1, pretending that what you did bears no similarities to what dr. W. did. The fact is, imprecise and fuzzy language aside, while the points you were trying to make differ, you were both trying to score a polemic point and used a tragedy caused by mental illness to do so.

[_Pahoran]

Which links no longer work.

But Beastie: You said you were willing to discuss "Gino" and "Christine" as long as it was off the anti-Schryver dog-pile thread. I started this thread as an acceptance of your offer.

And now you're reneging?

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Regards,
Pahoran

Here's the link to the new board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/442 ... riticisms/

I am discussing it by providing links to the old threads. If you have something new to say, then say it. Why should I repeat what's already been said?

So you had no intention of actually discussing the issue.

Got it.

On the old threads, you finally admitted that you used "imprecise" and "fuzzy" language. And now you're back at square 1, pretending that what you did bears no similarities to what dr. W. did.

That was my position all along. And in fact it did not, as any reasonable reading of the OP of this thread will show.

And if you were honest enough to take my imprecise and fuzzy language into account, you'd be able to admit that.

DrW is now also back at square 1, trying to argue that a mentally ill mother murdering her children is somehow a logical consequence of LDS doctrine. You previously heaped him with "kudos" when he reluctantly made a highly qualified admission that it was not the case. Does his new attempt to push that hate-based polemic at all modify your unstinting admiration for him?

Beastie's pertinacious false accusation is, imprecise and fuzzy language aside, while the points you were trying to make differ, you were both trying to score a polemic point and used a tragedy caused by mental illness to do so.

There. Fixed it for you again.

The real fact is that I briefly listed the Manna case, along with three or four others, in support of the entirely reasonable and non-polemical point that people frequently blame the Church for various kinds of family breakdowns when the real causes lie elsewhere.

Or do you deny that this really happens, and maintain that it is "polemic" to claim that it does?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

There. Fixed it for you again.

The real fact is that I briefly listed the Manna case, along with three or four others, in support of the entirely reasonable and non-polemical point that people frequently blame the Church for various kinds of family breakdowns when the real causes lie elsewhere.

Or do you deny that this really happens, and maintain that it is "polemic" to claim that it does?

Regards,
Pahoran

LOL. So according to you, asserting that apostates are always lying when they blame the church for their marital destruction is not a polemic point?

You're saying it's NOT an aggressive attack on the principles of apostates????

Do you really expect to be taken seriously?