I was going to respond to you point by point, but it’s just too tiresome and pointless. So I’ll just respond generally instead.
On this thread, as you did on the previous thread, you’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to explain your imprecise and fuzzy language, in order to assert that you were always talking about Gino’s brother as the liar, and not Gino. I suppose you think this absolves you, since Gino was mentally ill and his brother was not. This suggests to me that you never have understood why I think you’re a hypocrite.
I truly think you don’t understand the word “polemic”. I don’t have any idea what you think it means. Do you think it’s another word for “a vicious lie” or something? I don’t know, but I bear no responsibility for your misunderstanding of a fairly common term. You acted insulted earlier when I offered the definition, but it is because I really don’t think you understand the term at all. So here’s more explanation:
A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue. Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy. However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view.
Polemic usually addresses serious matters of religious, philosophical, political, or scientific importance, and is often written to dispute or refute a widely accepted position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolemicNow, I’m going to guess that you’re going to accuse me of dodging something by being “hyper-technical”. I don’t think it’s being “hyper-technical” to use a word understanding its correct meaning.
Both you and Dr. W were engaged in polemics. Of course you think he was wrong and you were right. And he vice-versa. Neither of you had any interest in seeking a common ground or understanding. And, in fact, both of you were making assertions that were valid. It is correct that Gino’s marriage was destroyed by his mental illness, and not the church. I’ve always maintained that. As I mentioned, it seems to me that one ought to have a bit of empathy and compassion for his brother, who was clearly speaking from great pain, and whose comments were triggered by his own brother’s use of LDS ideas to justify his actions. It was cold-hearted of you to use such an example, for that reason as well as the horrific tragedy behind the story. You were using his brother as an example of:
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.
More fuzzy and imprecise language, because now you explain that it isn’t necessarily THE PERSON TELLING THE PACK OF LIES (ie, the distraught Joseph), but anyone who believes the church is to blame for a family member or friend. But they’re not necessarily abusive, adulterers, anti-mormon tyrants. They’re just liars, I guess. Even though Gino himself linked his behavior to the church, Joseph is a liar.
You clarify that you weren’t just talking about apostates, but EVERYBODY who claims that the church broke up someone’s marriage, like Joseph.
The sad fact is that this picky and time-wasting back-and-forth is irrelevant to my point. And the reason you don’t understand that is because you don’t understand what the word polemic means.
I will try to say this one more time before I give up:
Whether or not an argument is polemic has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is correct, a misunderstanding, a lie, whatever. It has to do with the style of engaging the opponent.Both of you made assertions that were arguably valid, outside of the conclusions you both drew. Yes, Gino’s marital failure was not the fault of the church. Yes, by LDS theology Christine’s children are, indeed, in the Celestial Kingdom.
But you both drew extreme conclusions from the arguably valid parts of your assertions. Dr. W. argued that Christine’s actions demonstrated something bad about the LDS church’s teachings, and you argued that EVERYBODY who claims the LDS church broke up their marriage is a liar, an adulterer, an abuser, a tyrant.
I find both these conclusions very problematic. Dr. W’s was problematic because he ignored the fact that the LDS church does, indeed, teach it is wrong to kill, and LDS members in general don’t go around killing their children. Yours is problematic because there is simply no way for you to have enough background knowledge of enough cases to make the sort of categorical statement you did. You were both engaged in polemics, in which there was no middle ground.
And you both used a tragedy caused by mental illness to support your polemics.
It is easy for you to see how Dr. W “exploited” the tragedy, yet you cannot see how you exploited the Gino tragedy. So I will explain, one more time, how, in my view, what you did was exploitation.
1. There was no compelling reason for you to use the Gino case. in my opinion, you used it for the shock value, because you wanted to be able to say “the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it”. I draw this conclusion based on your very long history of associating apostates with the worst possible human behavior.
2. You showed a remarkable lack of empathy towards Joseph, by using him as an example of how EVERYBODY who blames the church for a marital dissolution is a liar, adulterer, abuser, tyrant. The poor man had just experienced a tragedy unimaginable to most of us, and his own ill brother had linked his actions to LDS ideas. And you’re going to beat up on him on the internet by using him as an example?
Now, aside from that, I will address again the accuracy of your conclusion. Note, this has NOTHING to do with my charge that you were a hypocrite to accuse Dr. W of foul behavior by exploiting a tragedy caused by mental illness.
You have repeatedly asserted that I ought to grant you your “fuzzy and imprecise” language in making your point. Ok. How about you grant “fuzzy and imprecise” language from those who assert that the church helped destroy their marriage? Talk about hyper-technical! When people say “the church”, they don’t just mean the formal guidelines outlined in some manual. They mean the culture. They mean the local leadership and members. The culture produces members like on the original Z thread – people like BSix and others who genuinely believe that apostasy, in and of itself, is just cause for divorce. The leaders are products of that culture, and I think there can be no doubt that some leaders, somewhere, probably say things to members who are troubled by a spouse’s apostasy that help them conclude divorce is the answer. I’ve heard these stories far too many times to doubt that it does happen. Yet you assert that the simple act of making this assertion automatically makes them not only a liar, but an adulterer, or abuser, or tyrant. It’s just ridiculous.
By the way, I don’t have any difficulties admitting when I’m wrong. I believe I’m right in this case. You both exploited a tragedy caused by a mental illness to score a polemic point. Or, if you object to the word “polemic”, you both exploited a tragedy to score your point.