"Gino" and "Christine" (For Beastie)

[_Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Although you represent the best of LDS apologetics, with a unique style that is no doubt greatly appreciated by the higher-ups in Mormondom, perhaps you would still allow me to make a small suggestion. If you are going to improve in your craft, you might want to spend less time thinking up insults to others and more time reading what rational authors on the subject of religion have to say in order to better defend your unfounded belief against damnable reason and pesky logic.

Really? You probably ought to take your own argument on board here. It is your "unfounded belief" that LDS doctrine had any material influence upon "Christine Jonsen" that is under the microscope of "damnable reason and pesky logic" right now, and it is failing miserably.

Again with the facts you refuse to acknowledge:

• "Christine Jonsen" (note the correct spelling of the pseudonym assigned to her by Ann Rule in 2006, the original source of your information about her) did not kill her children because of her LDS beliefs. She killed them because she was mentally ill.
• Mentally ill people do irrational things. In an effort to make some sense of their own irrational acts, they attempt to explain them in terms of their beliefs, but they do irrational things because their minds aren't working properly.
• If "Christine Jonsen" had really "believed it all" as you claimed, and was acting rationally according to her beliefs, her children would be alive today.
• Normally functioning Latter-day Saints are not, as you previously argued, merely pragmatists who don't really believe. Rather, they are those who understand -- as a mentally ill person cannot -- how their beliefs correctly interact with the real world.

You once tried to make an argument from an untestable hypothetical: what if "Christine Jonsen" had held Catholic-style beliefs in the gloomy fate of unbaptised children? (You got it wrong both times you tried that argument, but that's not important right now.) I answered that the outcome would be no different. In point of fact, there's really no way to tell; the behaviour of irrational people is irrational, and thus unpredictable. A very slight change in her beliefs, or her external circumstances, or in a driver tooting his horn or flashing his headlidghts as he came around the curve whlie she was driving her children to that bridge might have completely altered the outcome; or a the outcome might have been exactly the same if her belief system and/or physical circumstances had been radically different. It's all guesswork as to what the outcome might have been.

However, I've found that the behaviour of normally functioning, rational people is far more predictable. So let us consider an alternative hypothetical case. Let us see if we can predict what people here might have done, had the outcome been different.

From my reading, I have found that "Christine" asked her Church leaders to take her children and put them into foster care. Evidently, they were reluctant to do so. Now, let's suppose for a moment that they had acceded to her request. The children would have lived, of course; but what, presuming you had heard about it, would you be saying now? Since there would be no way to know how much danger the children would have been in had they stayed, we wouldn't actually know that the Church leaders' actions had saved the Children's lives, would we?

So wouldn't you be arguing long and loud that the Church leaders had cruelly taken advantage of "Christine's" emotional distress and heartlessly wrenched her children away from her? But she asked them to, I would respond. Yes, you would say, she asked them to, but in a moment of weakness, and they didn't take that into consideration at all. How dare they!

Now suppose further that, having no more responsibilities, and nothing to take her mind of how depressed she was feeling, she had gone on to take her own life; wouldn't you be insisting that the Church's high-handed action in taking her children away, just because she'd asked them to in a moment of weakness, was the trigger that caused her suicide?

And wouldn't the feminocracy here at MDB be resolutely on your side if that's how it had gone down?

I rather think that's how the discussion would have gone. But what say you, Foxtrot?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

...

However, I've found that the behaviour of normally functioning, rational people is far more predictable. So let us consider an alternative hypothetical case. Let us see if we can predict what people here might have done, had the outcome been different.

From my reading, I have found that "Christine" asked her Church leaders to take her children and put them into foster care. Evidently, they were reluctant to do so. Now, let's suppose for a moment that they had acceded to her request. The children would have lived, of course; but what, presuming you had heard about it, would you be saying now? Since there would be no way to know how much danger the children would have been in had they stayed, we wouldn't actually know that the Church leaders' actions had saved the Children's lives, would we?

So wouldn't you be arguing long and loud that the Church leaders had cruelly taken advantage of "Christine's" emotional distress and heartlessly wrenched her children away from her? But she asked them to, I would respond. Yes, you would say, she asked them to, but in a moment of weakness, and they didn't take that into consideration at all. How dare they!

Now suppose further that, having no more responsibilities, and nothing to take her mind of how depressed she was feeling, she had gone on to take her own life; wouldn't you be insisting that the Church's high-handed action in taking her children away, just because she'd asked them to in a moment of weakness, was the trigger that caused her suicide?

And wouldn't the feminocracy here at MDB be resolutely on your side if that's how it had gone down?

I rather think that's how the discussion would have gone. But what say you, Foxtrot?

Regards,
Pahoran

The approach of the above text does not essentially differ from:

"Hey! If <hypothetical circumstance X> pertained, you'd do something dumb. Then I'd laugh at you ..."

"Hey! I'm making up stories about you in my head, and you know what? You sat in cow-plop! You smell real bad and everyone is laughing at you."

Etc., etc.

[_Pahoran]

The approach of the above text does not essentially differ from:

"Hey! If <hypothetical circumstance X> pertained, you'd do something dumb. Then I'd laugh at you ..."

"Hey! I'm making up stories about you in my head, and you know what? You sat in cow-plop! You smell real bad and everyone is laughing at you."

Etc., etc.

This is about as mature and intelligent as everything else I've seen you post, Chap.

It was your hero DrW who first proposed a "what if" scenario. His was based upon what "Christine" would do "if" she believed Catholic rather than LDS doctrine. I simply proposed an alternative "what if."

If you think arguments based upon untestable hypotheticals are such a dumb idea, tell DrW. It was his idea in the first place.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

The approach of the above text does not essentially differ from:

"Hey! If <hypothetical circumstance X> pertained, you'd do something dumb. Then I'd laugh at you ..."

"Hey! I'm making up stories about you in my head, and you know what? You sat in cow-plop! You smell real bad and everyone is laughing at you."

Etc., etc.

This is about as mature and intelligent as everything else I've seen you post, Chap.

It was your hero DrW who first proposed a "what if" scenario. His was based upon what "Christine" would do "if" she believed Catholic rather than LDS doctrine. I simply proposed an alternative "what if."

If you think arguments based upon untestable hypotheticals are such a dumb idea, tell DrW. It was his idea in the first place.

Regards,
Pahoran

I wonder what evidence Pahoran has that I regard DrW as a heroic figure?

I realize that it is necessary to the construction of his rhetorical response to my post that he should represent me as feeling that way, but apart from that does he have anything?

I am also puzzled by whether or not Pahoran thinks that "arguments based upon untestable hypotheticals are ... a dumb idea".

If he does, why use such an argument (which is what he did with his chain of suppositions about how foolishly DrW would act if X, if Y, etc.)? If he does not, why blame DrW for allegedly using such an argument?

[_Pahoran]

I wonder what evidence Pahoran has that I regard DrW as a heroic figure?

I realize that it is necessary to the construction of his rhetorical response to my post that he should represent me as feeling that way, but apart from that does he have anything?

I am also puzzled by whether or not Pahoran thinks that "arguments based upon untestable hypotheticals are ... a dumb idea".

If he does, why use such an argument (which is what he did with his chain of suppositions about how foolishly DrW would act if X, if Y, etc.)? If he does not, why blame DrW for allegedly using such an argument?

Try to grow an attention span, Chap.

The point I am (vainly) trying to help you understand is that my hypothetical (about what DrW would do) was in response to his hypothetical (about what "Christine" would do.) This does not seem like it should be a very difficult concept for you to to grasp. If you don't approve of hypotheticals, then tell it to the person who started the game.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

I wonder what evidence Pahoran has that I regard DrW as a heroic figure?

I realize that it is necessary to the construction of his rhetorical response to my post that he should represent me as feeling that way, but apart from that does he have anything?

I am also puzzled by whether or not Pahoran thinks that "arguments based upon untestable hypotheticals are ... a dumb idea".

If he does, why use such an argument (which is what he did with his chain of suppositions about how foolishly DrW would act if X, if Y, etc.)? If he does not, why blame DrW for allegedly using such an argument?

Try to grow an attention span, Chap.

The point I am (vainly) trying to help you understand is that my hypothetical (about what DrW would do) was in response to his hypothetical (about what "Christine" would do.) This does not seem like it should be a very difficult concept for you to to grasp. If you don't approve of hypotheticals, then tell it to the person who started the game.

Regards,
Pahoran

Funny. It looked like a real Pahoran argument to me, and I have seen quite a few. Now we are told it was a parody of someone else. (Who else do we know who makes that kind of claim?)

Oh well, I'll believe what Pahoran says, just to show what a big warm-hearted Chap I am. After all, we are on Celestial where you have to be nice to people.

[_beastie]

I strongly encourage interested readers to read the original Z thread here:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/64 ... d2Bm1sa8pM

However, knowing that most readers will not do so, I’m going to engage in the rather tiresome task of pulling out the most pertinent posts and sharing them here. I do so because the context of Pahoran’s comments are extremely important.

The thread began when someone posted a question about a Church News article by President Hinckley. The article encouraged LDS women to stay with their nonmember husbands.

"Be good women, be good mothers

"You women, be good women, be good mothers. Be kind and gracious and generous. Strengthen your children with your faith and your testimony. Lift them up. Help them to walk through the troubled ways of the world as they grow in this very difficult age. Support, sustain, uphold, and bless your husbands with your love and your encouragement, and the Lord will bless you. Even if they are not members of the Church, bless them with kindness and reach out to them every good way that you can. The chances are that they will become members of the Church before they reach the time they die. It may be a long time and you may have a lot to put up with, but if that happens, you will think it is all worth it." From member meeting, Philadelphia Pa., Oct. 25, 2002

Some posters wished that, instead of focusing solely on nonmembers as future converts, Pres. Hinckley had also encouraged wives to stay with husbands who stop believing in the church. Some posters replied that the church has never encouraged believing spouses to divorce exbelievers. Tak responded to try telling one’s wife that he no longer believes, and see the reaction. Cloud posted:

Cloud: Funny I don't see President Hinckley telling wives to support their husbands if they stop believing. I mean don't get me wrong. I think he probably would tell her to stay with him even if he stopped believing but im not seeing that quote so far. but then I am limited to one quote.

And defender Scott replied:

Scott: I can't speak for the Church, but I would not expect any woman to stay with a man who became abusive and oppressive. Alas, some men do after they leave the Church.

This raised my radar, as it seemed to imply that the simple act of loss of belief would make a formerly non-abusive man become abusive. In my experience, abuse isn’t really connected to belief or lack thereof, and I would find it very odd for a man to suddenly become “abusive and oppressive” for no other reason than loss of belief. Soho pointed out that other statements of church leaders lead one to conclude that there is also, sadly, abuse in the church, by active members. When questioned about his implication that leaving the church caused some men to become abusive, Scott said:

Scott: My statement stands on its own. I wouldn't expect a woman to stay with an abusive husband. Inside or outside of the Church. Causal connection or not.

I have no doubt that some men make their enmity toward the Church the instrument of their abuse of their wives and/or children. That would be inexcusable.

The reason I’m sharing this much background of the thread is to share the context of Pahoran’s comments: the topic of the thread was twofold: divorce apostates, and if apostates do sometimes become abusive when they showed no signs of abuse as believers.

John Corrill: I obviously remembered the quote wrong. It appears I was projecting my own wish that it be OK for LDS wives to view their otherwise good non-member/non-believing husbands as acceptable and whole.

Scott: I'm starting to get the picture. You want the Church president to tell a wife she should shut up about her faith around her disbelieving husband lest he get the impression she doesn't think he's perfect.

Wow, what a twisting of words there, Scott, good job! So now wishing that LDS wives could view their non-believing husbands as “acceptable and whole” morphs into “shutting up about her faith”.

Sweet.

Scott tried to salvage the mess he’d made by then clarifying:

Scott: To me, "acceptable and whole" implies perfection, having arrived at a state where reform and improvement is unwarranted. I wouldn't expect my own wife to view me in that light.

If, by "acceptable and whole," you mean "OK for the time being," well, that's another matter.

Why, sure, it’s common to view “acceptable” as “perfect”. Maybe Scott used the same dictionary wherein Pahoran learned what “polemic” means. (clue to Pahoran: polemics can be defending something)

The conversation continued:

do realize that this is too much to expect, however. President Hinckley, did counsel these women to "put up with it" (roughly) until the day she can love him into the church. This is hardly viewing someone as acceptable and whole. To me, this is the biggest tragedy of the LDS Church.

by the way Scott, there is plenty of evidence that the LDS Church breaks up families (and at the very least strains relationships). I see it on continual basis at RFM (see the link in my original post for an example). It breaks my heart. The very fact that a disbelieving person fears to mention any doubt to their spouse indicates that the church creates fear in the minds of it's members. You have demonstrated that fear aptly on this thread.

Bsix sensibly stated:

1. To my knowledge, the Church does not, nor has it ever suggested divorce simply because of the religious beliefs of a non-Mormon spouse. This also applies to those spouses who leave Mormonism.

2. Is there abuse in LDS marriages? Yes.

3. Is it possible for a significatn religious change on the part of a one spouse to be a catalyst for spousal abuse? Yes. However, I think that almost all cases, if a spouse was an abuser after leaving Mormonism...they probably were before. It should also be noted that religious differences add a tremendous stress to a marriage. Especially in a partnership where fundamental religious beliefs are shared...and then one spouse "changes the contract."

4. My observation is that the spouse stays faithful to a religion can often be intolerant of the spouse who changes. However, don't fool yourselves...spouses who leave the religion can be very intolerant and insulting of their old faith.

5. Marriage difficulties over religion are not just a Mormon issue.

Soho’s comment, with which I totally agree:

I agree with all of six's points above. However, as to point 1, while this may not be a church position - some within the church may believe it appropriate to divorce in this case.

Now here’s where Pahoran jumps in:

Three corrections:

(1) We don't have to pretend it doesn't happen, because it doesn't. The Church does not break up marriages. It never has, and no-one with any more credibility than Ed Decker has ever claimed that it has.

(2) What evidence? Bald unsupported assertions are not evidence.

(3) You are clearly--and, given Scott's explicit statements on the subject, consciously--misrepresenting his position. He is not relying upon "made up ancedotes that men who leave the church become abusers who deserve to be divorced."

Speaking from my own experience, I have known a number of disgruntled apostates who have claimed that the Church "broke up" their marriages. In many of those cases I have obtained reliable information that it was they who broke up their marriages by their own abusive and/or unfaithful behaviour. Sometimes I have had first-hand knowledge of the fact; and in every case, their own spiteful and abusive attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ has provided persuasive evidence that for a believing Latter-day Saint, being forced to live with them would be hell on earth.

Tak replied:

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?

Tell us again who is relying upon anecdotes?

At the same time, believers started affirming that yes, they would view apostasy alone as justification for divorce.

Just a different thought on this thread. Are you suggesting that it is wrong for a woman to leave a husband who has abandoned the Church?

Look at it fromthe wife's perspective: Her mate, whom she presumably married for time and eternity, with whom and to whom you swore what you (the wife) considered to be sacred oaths, suddenly declares that he doesn't believe it any more. I get the sense that there is some indignation over the though that she might leave him because this represents only a part of their lives together.

I submit that this is false. It is my experience that my religious beliefs color everything that I do. It affects the decisions my wife and I make in regards to rearing our children. It affects many of our financial decisions. It affects my and her employment decisions. It directly affects the relationship between the spouses. When the husband suddenly declares his disbelieve, it radically remakes the dynamic between the husband and wife. Moreover, doesn't the wife have a right to get what she bargained for? If two people get married and he starts to beat her, abuse her, etc., then we don't have any problem with them getting divorced because that's not what she signed on for. However, it seems to be suggested that she should stick around in this case, even though the husband (or wife) has unilaterally changed the whole dynamic upon which the relationship was based.

Personally, whether the Church advocates for or against, I find a woman who stays with such a man to be the apex of patience and love despite what, to me, is a betrayal akin to adultery.

Pent

Pahoran, meanwhile, responded to Tak’s questions:

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.

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.

And another believer affirms that apostasy alone is justification for divorce:

Six: I don't know. To be honest, I'm not sure very much has been said on the subject. With that said, I'd say that if the Church does not encourage divorcing spouses who leave the church, they are by implication, accepting the marital status quo.

With that said, is there anything wrong with leaving a spouse over significant religious differences?

For dedicated Latter Day Saints, commitment to the Gospel, eternal marriage, temple sealing and temple covenants are a core mutually-agreed upon part of the marital contract.

We recognize that there are a number of legitimate reasons to justify ending the marriage: Emotional and physical abuse, drug addiction, abandonment, adultery, neglect etc.

I think it can be argued from the believing spouses point-of-view that apostacy could be reasonably seen as spiritual abandonment. When a spouse terminates the core religious values upon which the spiritual marriage was predicated upon...the "contract" has been broken. I think that just as in any other circumstance of marital contract breaking...the wronged spouse has the right to decide if they are going to stay with their spouse.

That is a highly personal issue, and not for me to dictate one way or another. It is also true that outsiders do not have a right to pass judgement on a faithful spouse who chooses not to continue in a relationship that has been altered by one party.

Regards,

Six

Subsequent posts consisted of Bsix and Pent defending their position.

Tak commented again:

Its not a character deficiency to want to be respected as an adult when making lifes decisions and sometimes the expressions of love are not be so sincere and not overbearing when the spouse has stopped believing in unbelievable things.

Maybe the Bretheren do not have a policy about spouses who leave the church and divorce, it is clear that some Church members feel a certain entitlement in abandoning an otherwise good marriage for the sake of their religion. But I suppose that is to be expected when the religion has been made the most important thing in their lives.

I was posting as Seven of Niine on Z, and said:

To the contrary, I have seen it stated or implied several times on this thread that even nonbelievers understand what a difficult situation this would be for a believing spouse.

What is being argued is whether or not divorce - if children are involved - is a "reasonable" solution.

And that would be my same question for comparable situations involving the converse in faiths. I would criticize a baptist for considering divorce - if children are involved - simply for the fact that their spouse became LDS, as well, and I bet you'd be outraged by it.

If "betrayal of religious fidelity" is the only problem, I truly cannot fathom how any spouse, with children, would feel good about exposing those children to the lifetime, and often devastating, effects of divorce. And I'm having a hard time understanding why you are justifying it.

I also seriously doubt GAs would concur with your position. I think there are certain local leaders who don't think things through fully, and may be overly sympathetic to the idea of divorcing a spouse who has lost belief, but I don't believe GAs say this sort of stuff. I think they are more careful than that. I may be wrong, but my impression is that the church encourages salvaging marriages in all cases, except the most severe. And I still support the church in that. I think that, by implying that it is "reasonable" for a believing spouse to divorce a nonbelieving spouse for a loss of faith, you are contributing to one of the more serious problems our culture faces - the frequent dissolutions of marriages that could be saved, and children who could be spared heartbreak and psychological problems. Have you read the literature around regarding the life long problems children of divorce often face?

It took me years to get the courage to divorce my exspouse, due to my fears over the effect on my children, and our marriage had seriously, long term problems (involving untreated mental illness, largely) I simply cannot fathom an LDS person considering putting their children through that particular hell - a hell that often leaves them unable to trust relationships in the future (we have a couple of people on this very board who seem to have inherited that very issue) - for no reason other than their spouse's lack of faith.

Besides, some people who lose faith return to the church.

This whole conversation has become very unsettling to me. I would have given anything to save my own marriage, but my exspouse was, due to his illness, more of a threat to my children's emotional welfare than divorce was (it took me years to figure that out, sadly). The thought that an LDS believe would do that to their children if the only problem is the spouse's loss of faith..... is tragic.

Notice my underlined comments. I actually agree that GAs would not recommend divorcing a spouse for no other reason than loss of faith. I was arguing against Bsix’s and Pent’s position that the loss of faith, in and of itself, is justification for divorce.

I also questioned Pahoran on how he could possibly know enough details about enough marital break-ups to make the sort of categoric statements he made, and he’s also made on this thread. Anyone older than 18 or so with an ounce of sense knows that divorces are messy and usually ugly, and both parties tend to go through a stage wherein they focus the entire burden of blame on their exspouse, while refusing to accept any responsibility for their own part. So listening to only one side of the story is hardly a reliable way to obtain information about the dissolution of a marriage.

So I asked Pahoran:

So just what, then, are you basing this categoric statement on? What are your sources of information, if not the parties involved? And just how many cases are you so knowledgeable of that you feel comfortable making this categoric assumption?

To which he replied:

I guess you really think you got me that time, don't you?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when apostates decide to malign the Church by falsely accusing it of breaking up their marriages, they do not usually confine their slanders to confidential disclosures that I would only learn if I were the close personal confidant of each one of them. Rather, they tend to broadcast these accusations quite promiscuously. Ed Decker is a rather well-known case in point--he made this accusation almost as promiscuously as he lived his personal life. However, his much-maligned ex-wife reports that her bishop kept encouraging her to forgive him and stick by him through all his string of affairs, and even after he fell away from the Church. Which not only refutes Ed, but it has added credibility (not that it needs it--Ed has negative credibility, which means that his disagreeing with any assertion adds weight to the claim that it is true) because it is consistent with the clear, unequivocal and emphatic policy of the Church.

But I do not rest my categorical statement upon that case alone. I know of many others. One occurred in my own family. Another occurred in a family I home-taught. Still another happened in a matter where I sat on the disciplinary council. One rather notorious case happened when I lived in Australia, wherein the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it. In that particular case, the bishop in question did in fact finally advise the wife to leave her increasingly abusive husband, but she didn't move quickly enough.

And there are others as well. But I'm sure that won't deter you from making some under-the-radar slur against my veracity. After all, why stop such an ingrained habit now?

Tak also reminded Pahoran that while “some” people may blame the church rather than face their own responsibility, which is no doubt true, others do not. Pahoran replied:

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.

At this point in the thread, Zoobie sent me articles about the Gino tragedy, and I was shocked that Pahoran used the example at all.

In the meantime, Pahoran replied to Gad

Asserted that a Bishop and a Stake President both urged a woman to divorce her husband for no other reason than that he had left the Church. You specifically claimed that "the Church" (emphasis yours) had done this.

But it doesn't happen. Sorry.

Now here’s where I accuse Pahoran of being hyper-technical. It is clear, by this point on the thread, that there are, in fact, believing members who think that apostasy alone is justification for divorce. There is no reason that such members would not take their opinions with them if they’re called to positions wherein they could counsel a believing spouse, upset over the spouse’s loss of faith. And yet Pahoran is going to be hyper-technical and insist that, even if a bishop and stake president counsel a women to divorce a spouse who left the church, that still cannot count as “the church” doing this.

“The church” means more than a set of formal guidelines. “The church” means the people within the church and the culture they create. For example, one could reasonably say:

“The church makes it difficult to be an older single adult.” That statement does not imply that there is some sort of formal guideline or policy stating “Make it difficult for older single adults.” What it means is that the church, as in the members therein and the culture they create.

I understand Pahoran will never concede this point.

In my response to him, I summarized his thesis thusly:

However, you made several statements on this thread that imply that when "apostates" (of which manna wasn't one in the first place) blame "the church" (which you interpret as meaning "church leaders instructing the faithful member to get a divorce" rather than "LDS beliefs or teachings leading the faithful member to divorce an apostate spouse") are "invariably" lying, and are actually at fault through abuse and adultery.

Notice Pahoran’s response:

That is the universal experience of not just myself, but of everyone I have ever talked to about this issue who did not have a vested polemical interest in a contrary position.

Of course, today Pahoran claims that his point had nothing to do with the “universal experience….”. All these comments I put together above are to be disregarded. Just part of the ebb and flow of the conversation. They have nothing to do with the argument that Pahoran was making.

To quote Pahoran: Got it.

[_Pahoran]

Try to grow an attention span, Chap.

The point I am (vainly) trying to help you understand is that my hypothetical (about what DrW would do) was in response to his hypothetical (about what "Christine" would do.) This does not seem like it should be a very difficult concept for you to to grasp. If you don't approve of hypotheticals, then tell it to the person who started the game.

Regards,
Pahoran

Funny. It looked like a real Pahoran argument to me, and I have seen quite a few. Now we are told it was a parody of someone else.

No, "we are told" no such thing.

I said a "response," not a parody.

The "parody" is your own generous contribution, entirely untroubled by any facts. I.e. it is a fabrication.

Now: do you, or do you not, have anything at all to say on the topic of the thread?

If not, I invite you to go and harass someone else with your rather spiteful, and entirely substance-free, banter.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I strongly encourage interested readers to read the original Z thread here:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/64 ... d2Bm1sa8pM

Good idea.

That way, Beastie can stop cluttering up the thread with novel-length posts re-hashing old discussions that are only tangentially relevant to this one, anyway.

I am going to ask you yet again, Beastie, to try to resist the temptation to control both sides of the conversation. If you really don't think you can get anywhere without doing that, then it might be as well for you to give up now, because I am not going to let you get away with it.

My position is mine to own and elucidate, and for the second time, will you kindly refrain from cobbling together convenient pastiches of my comments and calling them "Pahoran's thesis." They are no such thing.

I draw your attention once again (since your attention appears to be wandering) to the topic of this thread, Beastie. The question is not, "Who said what to whom seven years ago," but "Is Pahoran's argument with regard to the Manna case morally equivalent to the 'Christine Jonson' [sic] argument employed by DrW?"

On that topic, I invite you to respond to my last post addressed to you. For your convenience, you will find it on the second page of the thread, sixth from the botton.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

Good idea.

That way, Beastie can stop cluttering up the thread with novel-length posts re-hashing old discussions that are only tangentially relevant to this one, anyway.

I am going to ask you yet again, Beastie, to try to resist the temptation to control both sides of the conversation. If you really don't think you can get anywhere without doing that, then it might be as well for you to give up now, because I am not going to let you get away with it.

My position is mine to own and elucidate, and for the second time, will you kindly refrain from cobbling together convenient pastiches of my comments and calling them "Pahoran's thesis." They are no such thing.

I draw your attention once again (since your attention appears to be wandering) to the topic of this thread, Beastie. The question is not, "Who said what to whom seven years ago," but "Is Pahoran's argument with regard to the Manna case morally equivalent to the 'Christine Jonson' [sic] argument employed by DrW?"

On that topic, I invite you to respond to my last post addressed to you. For your convenience, you will find it on the second page of the thread, sixth from the botton.

Regards,
Pahoran

Well, gee, since you won't let me use your own words from the original Z thread, there is no point, is there? You've declared that I have to ignore all the comments you made that you now prefer to ignore, and if I don't, I'm "lying".

I guess this is how you convince yourself you win.

The context of the thread was important to highlight the fact that the thread was about two ideas: is apostasy justification for divorce, and do apostates become abusive and unbearable to their believing spouse. Your comments should be judged within that context.

But you now declare that the context of the thread is, itself, irrelevant to your comments.

However, I will waste just a little bit more time on this:

Pahoran

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.

You mentioned the Manna case within the context of defending this categoric statement:

Pahoran, from Z

Speaking from my own experience, I have known a number of disgruntled apostates who have claimed that the Church "broke up" their marriages. In many of those cases I have obtained reliable information that it was they who broke up their marriages by their own abusive and/or unfaithful behaviour. Sometimes I have had first-hand knowledge of the fact; and in every case, their own spiteful and abusive attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ has provided persuasive evidence that for a believing Latter-day Saint, being forced to live with them would be hell on earth.

Notice you were clearly talking about apostates.

I challenged you with:

So just what, then, are you basing this categoric statement on? What are your sources of information, if not the parties involved? And just how many cases are you so knowledgeable of that you feel comfortable making this categoric assumption?

You responded:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when apostates decide to malign the Church by falsely accusing it of breaking up their marriages, they do not usually confine their slanders to confidential disclosures that I would only learn if I were the close personal confidant of each one of them. Rather, they tend to broadcast these accusations quite promiscuously. Ed Decker is a rather well-known case in point--he made this accusation almost as promiscuously as he lived his personal life. However, his much-maligned ex-wife reports that her bishop kept encouraging her to forgive him and stick by him through all his string of affairs, and even after he fell away from the Church. Which not only refutes Ed, but it has added credibility (not that it needs it--Ed has negative credibility, which means that his disagreeing with any assertion adds weight to the claim that it is true) because it is consistent with the clear, unequivocal and emphatic policy of the Church.

But I do not rest my categorical statement upon that case alone. I know of many others. One occurred in my own family. Another occurred in a family I home-taught. Still another happened in a matter where I sat on the disciplinary council. One rather notorious case happened when I lived in Australia, wherein the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it. In that particular case, the bishop in question did in fact finally advise the wife to leave her increasingly abusive husband, but she didn't move quickly enough.

Notice again, you are talking about apostates and their bad behavior which destroys their marriages while they blame the church. The only apostate in the Manna case was the mentally ill Manna. As you stated to Dr. W:

Mentally ill people do irrational things. In an effort to make some sense of their own irrational acts, they attempt to explain them in terms of their beliefs, but they do irrational things because their minds aren't working properly.

Pahoran

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.

I didn't say you stated or implied that. I said that you have a history of associating the worst of human behavior with apostates. Do you actually deny this?

Pahoran

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.

You are persistently ignoring what your own words demonstrate to be part of the argument you were making: that apostates are actually blaming the church while they engage in abusive behavior.

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.

You see nothing wrong with having done so. And yet you don't want to be held accountable to those same words while judging whether or not you exploited a tragedy caused by mental illness to score your point (by the way, polemics can be defensive, but who would argue that your characterization of apostates was defensive???) When being judged for whether or not your use of the Manna case was exploitative, you will only be held accountable for "people who blame the church for the dissolution of a marriage are invariably wrong" (depending on your hypertechnical use of "the church", of course) and you refuse to be held accountable for all the statements you made within your argument accusing apostates of all sorts of vile behavior. There was only one person in the Manna case engaged in vile behavior, since you now concede that Joseph cannot be so castigated. That one person was Manna, and his vile behavior was caused by mental illness.

Just like Christine's.