"Gino" and "Christine" (For Beastie)

[_Pahoran]

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?

Beastie, you seem to be wandering somewhat from the topic.

I refer you to the OP.

Please explain how "People wrongly blame the Church for things that are really caused by their own actions, or the actions of others unconnected to the Church" is meaningfully parallel to "Mormon doctrine causes mothers to murder their children."

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Beastie, you seem to be wandering somewhat from the topic.

I refer you to the OP.

Please explain how "People wrongly blame the Church for things that are really caused by their own actions, or the actions of others unconnected to the Church" is meaningfully parallel to "Mormon doctrine causes mothers to murder their children."

Regards,
Pahoran

I never said, as you claim, that the cases are "indistinguishable". I said that you both used a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point. That is undeniable to anyone who understands the word "polemic" and read the threads in question.

[_Pahoran]

Beastie, you seem to be wandering somewhat from the topic.

I refer you to the OP.

Please explain how "People wrongly blame the Church for things that are really caused by their own actions, or the actions of others unconnected to the Church" is meaningfully parallel to "Mormon doctrine causes mothers to murder their children."

Regards,
Pahoran

I never said, as you claim, that the cases are "indistinguishable". I said that you both used a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point. That is undeniable to anyone who understands the word "polemic" and read the threads in question.

Thank you for admitting, Beastie, that the cases are distinguishable. Because, since the cases can be meaningfully distinguished -- and, by your tacit admission, not meaningfully parallel -- then it follows that I was not merely scolding DrWertlos for doing the same thing I did. And therefore, your accusation of "hypocrisy" against me collapses at once.

Here is a parallel case for you to consider, Beastie: Suppose you knew of a medieval Jewish scholar who had once mentioned that Christian crusaders had killed Jewish and Muslim children. Suppose you subsequently found that that same scholar had written a book denying the atrocity tale of the "Holy Child of La Guardia" and attacking those who fabricated it. Would you immediately conclude that he was a "hypocrite?"

Or would the fact that he was not me enable you to take a more intelligent view of the question?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Thank you for admitting, Beastie, that the cases are distinguishable. Because, since the cases can be meaningfully distinguished -- and, by your tacit admission, not meaningfully parallel -- then it follows that I was not merely scolding DrWertlos for doing the same thing I did. And therefore, your accusation of "hypocrisy" against me collapses at once.

Here is a parallel case for you to consider, Beastie: Suppose you knew of a medieval Jewish scholar who had once mentioned that Christian crusaders had killed Jewish and Muslim children. Suppose you subsequently found that that same scholar had written a book denying the atrocity tale of the "Holy Child of La Guardia" and attacking those who fabricated it. Would you immediately conclude that he was a "hypocrite?"

Or would the fact that he was not me enable you to take a more intelligent view of the question?

Regards,
Pahoran

I never said the cases were "indistinguishable." I said that you both exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point.

Now you seem to be arguing that you should be free of the charge of hypocrisy because your argument is correct and Dr. W's is not. While that has nothing to do with why I called you a hypocrite, I'll briefly address it.

It is true that the case of Gino included a person who blamed the church for problems that were actually caused by mental illness: his brother, who apparently was never even a member of the church. (Gino also blamed the church for his difficulties, which we know via his bishop, but you have clarified that you were always talking about Gino's brother, and even though you admitted it was your "imprecise" and "fuzzy" language that led me to conclude otherwise, that did not temper your reaction towards my criticism.) Of course, I think that empathy would cause one to refrain from harsh judgment of Gino's brother's words, since he had just suffered an unbelievable tragedy, and Gino himself linked his actions to his quasi-LDS beliefs. However, that does not alter the fact that you were a hypocrite to so heavily criticize Dr. W for using the Christine case. Here were your words, again:

And an honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ -- if such there is, or ever could be -- would admit this fact, and not attempt to exploit such a tragedy for polemical purposes.

Note the bolded words.

As to whether or not Dr. W's example is less true, somehow, than your own, I think that is more complicated that you imply. Dr. W, as you quoted him, said:

Christine Jonson, in accordance with a perfectly logical interpretation of Mormon beliefs, drowning her two young sons so they could "attain the celestial Kingdom"?

You countered with "Thou shall not kill."

The fact of the matter is that, if the LDS church is true, then Christine's children are, indeed, in the celestial kingdom. The fact of the matter is also that Christine is not, due to having killed someone. But mothers are often willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save their children. So, to be frank, it is logical to think that if one kills children under the age of 8 they will enter the celestial kingdom because the LDS church teaches that all children who die before the age of accountability will automatically enter the celestial kingdom regardless of the cause of their death.

Of course this does not mean that the LDS church is teaching people to kill their children. And it does not mean that it would even occur to most LDS people to do so. I agree, and always agreed, that Christine's murderous actions were caused by mental illness, and that they were simply expressed through her host culture, as mental illness always is. I used the example of my own "host culture", atheism, to make that point. A mentally disturbed atheist could conclude it was more merciful to kill someone who has a difficult life rather than allow them to continue to suffer because nothing particularly "bad" is going to happen to the person after being killed - they'll just cease to exist and stop suffering. Yet the fact that a mentally disturbed atheist could draw such a conclusion has nothing to do with whether or not the lack of belief in God is morally problematic, even if some people on the internet would try to make that argument. So, likewise, there is nothing morally problematic with teaching that children who die before the age of 8 automatically go to the CK. It's an LDS teaching I always liked.

So while both of you were using an example "technically true", the fact is that the mental illness is the relevant factor in both cases, and to use these cases to try to make a polemic point is exploiting a tragedy, as you said. Yet, your response, when I pointed out that you neglected to mention Gino's very serious mental illness, was "woop-de-doo", as if it were entirely irrelevant.

You are perfectly able to see that Dr. W exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point, but seem incapable of recognizing that is what you did, as well. You said that you had many other cases that would illustrate your point, and I'm assuming those cases didn't include serious mental illness. So why even use the Gino case? I'll tell you why. Because it gave you the opportunity to say:

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

Of course, he wasn't even really an apostate, was he, but that doesn't stop you from your persistent and lengthy career of trying to associate apostates with the worst possible human behavior.

[_Pahoran]

I never said the cases were "indistinguishable." I said that you both exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score a polemic point.

And you were, um, "mistaken."

Now you seem to be arguing that you should be free of the charge of hypocrisy because your argument is correct and Dr. W's is not. While that has nothing to do with why I called you a hypocrite, I'll briefly address it.

That's not quite my argument, but I'll come back to that later.

It is true that the case of Gino included a person who blamed the church for problems that were actually caused by mental illness: his brother, who apparently was never even a member of the church. (Gino also blamed the church for his difficulties, which we know via his bishop, but you have clarified that you were always talking about Gino's brother, and even though you admitted it was your "imprecise" and "fuzzy" language that led me to conclude otherwise, that did not temper your reaction towards my criticism.)

Five and a half years after the original discussion, you invaded a thread in order to badger me about it. You refused to accept any clarification from me, and accused me of either lying or "conveniently" misremembering, until my analysis of the original discussion showed that I was right all along and you were wrong. The admitted imprecision of my language is sufficient to allow for an initial honest misunderstanding on your part. I fail to see that such a misunderstanding justifies either your stubborn adherence to your opinion, your baseless accusations or your campaign of harassment.

Of course, I think that empathy would cause one to refrain from harsh judgment of Gino's brother's words, since he had just suffered an unbelievable tragedy, and Gino himself linked his actions to his quasi-LDS beliefs.

This is a valid point. However, taking all this into account, the fundamental point of my initial mention of this case remains sound. The Church was accused of causing a family tragedy. This accusation was not true. The real causes were found in the actions of an individual acting without the Church's influence and contrary to its teachings.

However, that does not alter the fact that you were a hypocrite

You really ought to refrain from calling your contested -- and polemical -- opinions "facts." This is not a fact.

to so heavily criticize Dr. W for using the Christine case. Here were your words, again:

And an honest critic of the Church of Jesus Christ -- if such there is, or ever could be -- would admit this fact, and not attempt to exploit such a tragedy for polemical purposes.

Note the bolded words.

I do note them.

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.

Bottom line: there is no way to argue "The logical application of Mormon doctrine is to murder your children" that is not polemical.

It is not merely that the two cases are distinguishable, Beastie; it is that they are not meaningfully parallel in any way.

And now we are going back over old ground. In our earlier discussions of this issue, you smugly trotted out the original ZLMB posts and tried to argue from the details that I was doing the same thing as DrWertlos. And you kept right on trying to argue from the details, until I demonstrated that the details supported me, not you; whereupon you shifted your ground and tried instead to argue from the broad brush strokes.

Why is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?

I did not exploit the Manna case for polemical purposes. Would it really kill you to just admit that?

Snip to end.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_hatersinmyward]

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 like that.

[_beastie]

Let's take this one step at a time for as long as I can stand it.

Polemic: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another

I'm assuming you accept that definition. You asserted that apostates are always lying when they blame the church for marital dissolution. In fact, you even used the word "categoric" to describe your assertion.

This is a polemic point. It is an aggressive attack on the principles of a group of people.

If you can't even concede that, there is really no point in further interaction, as delightful as those interactions always are.

[_Pahoran]

Let's take this one step at a time for as long as I can stand it.

Polemic: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another

I'm assuming you accept that definition. You asserted that apostates are always lying when they blame the church for marital dissolution. In fact, you even used the word "categoric" to describe your assertion.

This is a polemic point. It is an aggressive attack on the principles of a group of people.

If you can't even concede that, there is really no point in further interaction, as delightful as those interactions always are.

No, it was not about the principles of a group of people. It was about the principles of those who tell lies about the Church breaking up their marriages.

I contend that if it is "polemic" to say things like "the person telling the pack of lies that 'the Church broke up my marriage (sob)' has done something wrong," then it must be equally "polemic" to say things like "the person incurring 20 speeding tickets a year has done something wrong." Neither of them represents a "group of people," unless you want to define the group by their shared misdeeds.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Your argument was that whenever an apostate claims that the church destroyed his/her marriage, that apostate was lying.

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.

Tak’s response:

Yes some people might, but not all.

Pahoran’s response

And you're absolutely right. Many of those who fall away (or are pushed) never make that claim.

It's only those who do make it that are lying thereby.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/64 ... dnKSVsa8pM

Part of the irony of this thread was that you were making the argument that anyone who claims the church destroyed their marriage must be lying at the same time other believers were arguing that it would be perfectly justified to divorce a spouse for leaving the LDS church for “spiritual infidelity.”

Aside from that humorous memory, the point is that you were asserting that every apostate who claimed that the LDS church broke up their marriage was lying. Later, you rephrased Tak’s comment thusly:

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.

You are attacking a group of people – apostates who fault the church for the destruction of their marriage – and that is a polemic argument.

by the way, I’m not sure you really understand what polemic means. It doesn’t have anything to do with the truthfulness of the argument.

And, a second by the way, your argument was not true. As the thread itself showed, there are, indeed, LDS who believe that a spouse losing faith justifies ending the marriage. Of course that’s besides the point. The point is that you were attacking a group of people and you used a tragedy caused by mental illness to support your point. In other words, you exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point.

[_Pahoran]

Your argument was

So now you're going to take it upon yourself to tell me(!) what my(!) argument was.

Actually my argument is what I say it is (and always was.) We've done this discussion before, Beastie, and as I recall even you were ultimately forced to admit that it was the case.

So let's see if you can get it right this time.

that whenever an apostate claims that the church destroyed his/her marriage, that apostate was lying.

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.

Tak’s response:

Yes some people might, but not all.

Pahoran’s response

And you're absolutely right. Many of those who fall away (or are pushed) never make that claim.

It's only those who do make it that are lying thereby.

Almost; but not quite.

You missed out this part of the exchange.

Tak responded to my first post in the thread with:

Your experience ? And with this vast all knowing experience you can state that there has never been anywhere in the Church a well-meaning bishop who encouraged divorce from the spouse who left the church?

That the person leaving the Church has always committed adultery, was abusive or is a miserable anti-mormon tyrant.

And you know this how?

And I responded with:

You really need to sharpen up your reading skills, Tak. That is not my experience.

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.

Get it right.

Thus, the topic had drifted somewhat from focus upon apostates to anyone -- apostate or othewise -- who made that claim.

But you know that, because you quoted that yourself.

Topics drift, Beastie. That's what they do.

Part of the irony of this thread was that you were making the argument that anyone who claims the church destroyed their marriage must be lying at the same time other believers were arguing that it would be perfectly justified to divorce a spouse for leaving the LDS church for “spiritual infidelity.”

And the irony of your tendentious quote mining is that you carefully excluded the portions that address that very point. In the post from which you quoted, I also said:

No, I cannot be certain that there has never been a well-meaning and sympathetic bishop who let his compassion for a merely emotionally abused wife (as opposed to a physically abused, abandoned or sexually betrayed one) lead him into acting contrary to the explicit policy of the Church.

But please note that this hypothetical bishop would only be doing what the disgruntled apostate himself has done, only less so. When individuals act contrary to Church policy, then it is not honest to claim that "the Church" is doing it.

Note that when overzealous members claim that people are justified in seeking a divorce for no other reason than that their spouse has left the Church, and has committed no other marital misconduct, then they are arguing directly contrary to the Church's position.

Aside from that humorous memory, the point is that you were asserting that every apostate who claimed that the LDS church broke up their marriage was lying.

No. The point is that I was asserting that everybody who claimed that the LDS church broke up their marriage was lying.

You are attacking a group of people – apostates who fault the church for the destruction of their marriage – and that is a polemic argument.

As I said: Not unless the "group of people" is grouped by their shared misdeeds.

If I said that "people who choose to steal are dishonest," is that a "polemic argument?"

If I said that "people who consistently drive under the influence of alcohol are dangerous drivers," is that a "polemic argument?"

by the way, I’m not sure you really understand what polemic means. It doesn’t have anything to do with the truthfulness of the argument.

I smell an equivocation coming.

If you're going to resort to some hyper-technical construction that allows any argument that reflects badly upon two or more people at once to be "polemic" in order to capture my argument, then you are not going to be able to then insist that DrWertlos' argument is "polemic" in exactly the same way as mine. Which you will have to do in order to make your malicious accusation of "hypocrisy" stick.

And, a second by the way, your argument was not true. As the thread itself showed, there are, indeed, LDS who believe that a spouse losing faith justifies ending the marriage. Of course that’s besides the point.

No, it's beside the point. Also, see above.

The point is that you were attacking a group of people and you used a tragedy caused by mental illness to support your point.

No, it is not.

The point is that I defended the Church from an unjustified attack by arguing that those who make that attack are not telling the truth.

In support of that argument, I mentioned a number of anecdotes from memory.

In other words, you exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to make a polemic point.

My use of that case was fair and reasonable. I did not attribute Gino Manna's actions to any ex-Mormon influence; my sole use of that case was to cite it as an example where the Church was blamed -- and it was -- but was not at fault -- and it wasn't.

DrWertlos used his chosen case in a way that was neither fair nor reasonable. He attributed "Christine Jonsen's" actions to her LDS beliefs, which was false, and tried to argue to a conclusion about the effect of accepting LDS doctrine, which was likewise false, and which moreover was intended to libel the faith of the Latter-day Saints. He tried to conceal or downplay the influence of her mental illness upon her actions.

Are you really incapable of seeing how diametrically different these two cases are?

Time to stop tap-dancing, Beastie: since (as you have already admitted) the two cases are not meaningfully parallel, do you really think you have any basis for your accusation of "hypocrisy?"

Or are you just continuing to worry at this bone because you can't bear to admit that you were simply wrong?

Regards,
Pahoran