"Gino" and "Christine" (For Beastie)

[_Pahoran]

So quoting your very words from the original thread constitutes my attempt to “control both sides of the conversation?????

That's a very small part of it. Cobbling together pastiches from different posts and pretending they represent my "thesis" that is somehow binding on me is more of it.

As I previously pointed out: if I was not here, and actively participating, then all you'd have to go on was what I wrote back then, and your approach would be legitimate. But I am here, and actively participating, so I, and not you, will tell you what my position is. If you have any issues about specific things I said back then, I will endeavour to explain it to you.

That's how civilised people carry on these kinds of discussions, Beastie.

This is utterly bizarre. We are discussing the argument you made years ago on Z, and comparing it to the argument Dr W made in the past, as well.

Which argument he is maintaining on this current thread. And which is still one of the scraps on "Post-Mormon scrapbook" and Free Republic.

Yes, I know you wish he'd shut up so you can continue to misrepresent things to your heart's content, but I guess controlling three sides of a conversation is too much, even for someone as controlling as you.

These are both past events. And yet, somehow, you cry “foul” when I quote your own words????? At least now I understand why you said, in response to me quoting your own words

Pahoran, after beastie quoted his own words

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.

I scarcely know what to say.

What, does that mean you're going to stop talking? Say it isn't so!

For one thing I wasn’t “forced” admit that was the case. I decided to accept your insistence that you meant one thing, although your fuzzy and imprecise language clearly conveyed an entirely different thing.

Whew! For a moment there I was worried.

But "an entirely different thing?" Really?

Please note that when you suggested that I had a "thesis," I corrected you by telling you what my "thesis" would be, were I to formulate one. It is:

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is accused of being at fault for the breakup of families, or other family tragedies perpetrated by people acting contrary to the unequivocal and well-known teachings of the Church, those accusations are invariably false.

And this is "entirely different" from what I said then?

Really?

I'm sorry, Beastie, I seem to have missed something.

What part of what I wrote back then contradicts that thesis?

Or if that's too high a bar, what part of what I wrote back then would be at cross purposes with that thesis?

Or if even that's too much to ask, what part of what I wrote back then does not directly support that thesis?

How "entirely different" is it, really?

Besides: it was only after you posted all the bits from the old ZLMB thread, and we delved into what I actually wrote, and I rather unequivocally demonstrated that your view of my position was flawed, that you finally produced that admission.

I was tired of fussing with you, as I am now, and didn’t see the point to continuing, so I let it go. But you admitting that you used fuzzy and imprecise language that confused your point is hardly the equivalent of me being “forced” to admit anything.

But you were the one who brought it up, Beastie. On that occasion, you even "came out of retirement" to bring it up.

Since you brought up marital arguments, I can just imagine what kind of person would benefit from this sort of fiat. “You are forbidden to use historical utterances against me.”

Wife: “I want to see a counselor. You are verbally abusive to me and I want it to stop.”
Husband: “We don’t need a counselor and I’m not verbally abusive to you.”

Here again, we see how you can only win the argument by controlling both sides of the conversation. Let's let the husband speak for himself, shall we?

Wife: “I want to see a counselor. You are verbally abusive to me and I want it to stop.”

Husband: “Referring to what?”

Wife: “I think it’s verbally abusive when you call me names (cites example from the past), belittle me, (cites example from past) and scream at me (cites example from the past).

Husband: “Hang on: the most recent example you've cited was from seven years ago. It seems to me that a reasonable view would be that it has stopped. If I recall, not everything you said to me was all sweetness and light in those days either, but I'm not obessing about it. You know, if you're having trouble letting go of things that happened that long ago, maybe we do need to see a counselor."

How in the world can we possibly have a discussion (which you whined for) about what you said in the past if I can’t mention what you said in the past.????

Well, you could do what real people do when they have real discussions about real issues: that is, you argue your position, and I'll argue mine.

You might want to try it sometime, Beastie. That way you only have to do half the work.

Besides: what you mischievously mischaracterise as me "whining for" the discussion was actually me accepting your offer, and you trying to renege.

Discussing and elucidating does not mean that one can simply ignore the words that have been said and their meaning. By all means, if your current position is different than your past position, say as much.

Nice try. My actual position -- as opposed to any verbal backhanders I might have aimed at you and yours at the time -- is what it was, as demonstrated above.

And I didn't say you said I stated or implied that. But DrW did both state and imply that accepting LDS teaching logically leads to murderous rampages.

And that one fact alone -- which fact you have explicitly admitted -- means that our two arguments are not morally equivalent.

And thus I am cleared of the charge of "hypocrisy" you keep trying to pin on me..

Wow, how shocking. Pahoran clears himself of the charge. Imagine that.

Not quite. You cleared me of the charge when you admitted that our two arguments were not morally equivalent.

My argument is not that you are a hypocrite because your arguments are morally equivalent.

My argument is that you are a hypocrite because you both used a tragedy caused by mental illness to make your respective points. And when Dr. W did that, you expressed moral outrage. I believe I’ve clarified that repeatedly.

But if -- as you have again admitted -- my two-sentence hand-wave at the Manna case was not morally equivalent to the elaborate edifice of exploitive demagogy that DrW erected upon the graves of "Christine Jonsen's" children, then there is no hypocrisy in view. Some person A criticising some other person B is hypocritical if and only if there is demonstrable moral equivalence between the actions of the two parties.

As you would, I am sure, easily be able to see, but for the perspective-ruining fact that you detest person A.

I only delved into the details of your argument and the Manna case to try to demonstrate that it wasn’t even a good fit as an example to support your argument.

Which it would not have been, had my argument been what you keep stubbornly trying to insist that it was.

But then, it's rather tangential to your accusation of "hypocrisy," isn't it?

by the way, Joseph probably wasn’t even completely wrong if he blamed the church for his brother’s worsening symptoms. (If, however, he blamed the church for creating his sickness to begin with, that was completely wrong, obviously.) As Baker said earlier:

It is a dangerous thing to lead a schizophrenic person to believe that the voice in his/her head is that of the lord or the holy ghost. I've seen examples of bizarre experiences being recounted by mentally ill members on home teaching visits and in testimony meetings. In my experience, these people are often left to their delusions so long as the experiences motivate them to continue belief in the church. There are times when the magical aspects of the faith can become all too real to those incapable of applying a certain degree of skepticism to their own religious experiences.

That said, to call these incidents the fault of the church would effectively render religion in general for everything done in its name, no matter what other factors may be at play. To me, that's a bit like blaming video games and heavy metal for the crazed, murderous rampages of those that espouse them.

Gino was excommunicated and off his meds. The Church wasn't telling him that any "voice in his head" was the Holy Ghost, so Baker's observation is not on point, and Joseph's attempt to pin the blame in the Church was false.

Now, keep in mind that I have argued against Dr. W’s use of this example because it is fundamentally flawed. Yet, at the same time, one must admit that, in fact, Christine did achieve her goal, didn’t she? So there is some element of truth therein, albeit burdened by the flaws.

In the same manner, there is a nugget of truth in your assertion that Joseph unfairly blamed the church for his brother’s problems, with the concession that this particular religious belief may not have been helpful to his schizophrenia. However, as your retreat to “fuzzy and imprecise” language and “you can’t quote me on the original thread” and hyper-technical definition of “the church” shows, the nugget of truth is overshadowed by all the flaws.

In the end, I conclude that both you and Dr. W used a tragedy to demonstrate your points when the tragedy didn’t really demonstrate your point that well, due to the burdens of the example. Yet you both chose to use the tragedy, nonetheless. That’s why you were a hypocrite to so harshly criticize him for having done so.

Ah, so that's what you were trying to achieve.

I stand in awe at this example of your convoluted reasoning.

There was no "nugget of truth" in the Wertlos argument. Christine killed her children because she was mentally ill, not because of her "logical" application of LDS doctrine.

There was no "nugget of truth" in Joseph Manna's claims. Gino killed his family and himself because he was mentally ill, not because the Church was conspiring against him.

But this means that my actual argument remains sound. Many people have blamed the Church for family breakups and other family disasters when the Church was not at fault, but the actual causes of the disaster lay in the actions of those acting contrary to the clearly articulated teachings of the Church, and Joseph Manna was one of them.

It would be nice, Beastie, if you could somehow move beyond your personal animosity towards me. If you could bring yourself to let go of unkind things I said about apostates seven years ago.

That way, it might be possible to discuss things that are happening now without you getting all historical.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_DrW]

Now, keep in mind that I have argued against Dr. W’s use of this example because it is fundamentally flawed. Yet, at the same time, one must admit that, in fact, Christine did achieve her goal, didn’t she? So there is some element of truth therein, albeit burdened by the flaws.

So let me get this straight.

You admit (as did Pahoran) that (according to LDS unfounded belief) Christine achieved her goal of ensuring her children a place in the Celestial Kingdom.

Having achieved this most sought after of all Mormon goals for her children, which was in fact her stated aim and intent, why do you attempt to lessen the impact of her glorious achievement by saying that the "truth" was burdened by "flaws".

In any case, given the scope of her sacrifice for her children and what she achieved for them, what does that matter?

What does "truth" burdened by "flaws" even mean?

In fact, given that she intentionally engaged in specific goal-oriented behavior that had the sought after outcome in that it ultimately worked to the benefit of her children, I would say that you were thin ice to even state that she was actually irrational when she made her decision. As I have stated all along, for a distressed Mormon parent who wanted the best for her children, I would say she did very well indeed.

You have said as much. What is wrong with taking the next step and recognizing that these kinds of made-up magical 19th century religious pronouncements about the imagined realities of "life after death" are just that - and nothing more.

Why not just look around and recognize how harmful such unfounded religious ideation can be, and often is, to society in general.

[_beastie]

I think it’s time to agree to disagree. I have attempted, numerous times, to explain the basis for my charge of hypocrisy. It had nothing to do with the respective arguments per se. Pahoran created his own standard of proving hypocrisy based on the moral equivalency of the arguments themselves, ignoring the fact that my accusation was not based in the arguments to begin with. It had to do with using a tragedy caused by a mental illness to score a point. Whatever amount of time I have spent addressing the actual arguments was in an apparently vain attempt to get each party to see why the use of the tragedy caused by mental illness was not even apt, and therefore, exploitative. It appears neither party is willing to concede that point. However, I do note that Pahoran has spent quite a bit of time distancing himself from his past words through openly forbidding me to use his own words from the original thread, to invoking imprecise and fuzzy language, and dismissing portions of his past argument as the “ebb and flow” of discussion and backhanded swipes. I think all these maneuvers on his part indicates, whether or not he’s willing to admit it, that, on at least some level, he recognizes the validity of my point.

Since we are at the point in the discussion where we are going to simply repeat ourselves, I think it’s time for me to move on. I will preemptively state that Pahoran is incorrect if he claims my fatigue with this topic indicates some sort of victory on his part.

Have fun!

[Guest]

Have fun!

Beastie,

You too.

Although we could not agree, you did a great job standing your ground while firing in two directions. Unlike the third corner in this discussion, you did not become defensive or resort to ad hominem attacks and insults.

Have a good holiday weekend.

[_EAllusion]

In normative LDS theology, the ultimate goal for a Mormon isn't to get to the CK, but rather to progress as a person through obedience to God's dictates. Going to the CK is just part of that. So a Mormon who kills her kids to get them to the CK is disobeying God and therefore doing a bad thing in LDS theology.

That being said, there is an obvious logic to sacrificing oneself in despair to ensure bliss for your children. While it might not be technically right because that loophole has been closed with an ad hoc commandment, it's easy to see where it comes from in the throws of delusional thinking.

Beastie has owned this thread, by the way.

[_DrW]

Beastie has owned this thread, by the way.

I would like to agree with you. However, I am afraid that Pahoran would dredge up the comment and use it as ammunition next time he chooses to go on a rant about Christine Jonson.

That true story must have gotten to him. He brings it up at least once a year.

[_Pahoran]

So let me get this straight.

Do you think you really can?

More to the point: why would you want to?

You admit (as did Pahoran) that (according to LDS unfounded belief) Christine achieved her goal of ensuring her children a place in the Celestial Kingdom.

It is true that normative LDS doctrine holds that the irrational actions of "Christine" (not her real name, and you never actually knew what it was, because the first time you ever heard about it was in Ann Rule's 2006 book) will not compromise her children's eternal destiny.

But the only "unfounded belief" in view is the brazen falsehood that any part of "Christine's" irrational actions were meaningfully motivated by a "logical" application of LDS doctrine. This is a fact that is readily admitted by everyone who is not a completely shameless liar.

Having achieved this most sought after of all Mormon goals for her children, which was in fact her stated aim and intent, why do you attempt to lessen the impact of her glorious achievement by saying that the "truth" was burdened by "flaws".

Because, as much as she hates the Church of Jesus Christ, and as few and feeble as her scruples are, even she has to admit that your revolting bit of hate propaganda goes to far.

And when as dedicated an anti-Mormon as Beastie can't stomach such a brazen attempt to blame the Church for the irrational actions of a mentally ill person, then it's time for you to cut your losses.

In any case, given the scope of her sacrifice for her children and what she achieved for them, what does that matter?

What does "truth" burdened by "flaws" even mean?

In fact, given that she intentionally engaged in specific goal-oriented behavior that had the sought after outcome in that it ultimately worked to the benefit of her children, I would say that you were thin ice to even state that she was actually irrational when she made her decision. As I have stated all along, for a distressed Mormon parent who wanted the best for her children, I would say she did very well indeed.

Such indeed was your shameless libel.

You have said as much. What is wrong with taking the next step and recognizing that these kinds of made-up magical 19th century religious pronouncements about the imagined realities of "life after death" are just that - and nothing more.

Why not just look around and recognize how harmful such unfounded religious ideation can be, and often is, to society in general.

Let's see.

How many normally functioning LDS parents sat down in Family Home Evening in the last year, read through their scriptures, talked through the alternatives, and decided to drown their children as the best way to ensure their salvation?

Okay, how about in the last ten years?

How about in the last twenty years?

How about ever?

The fact, DrWertlos, is that it has never happened that way.

(Not that you care. Your hate ideology has no use for facts.)

The reality is that "Christine Jonsen" did nothing that was "logical." She was a mentally ill mother acting out of despair. Beastie was in no wise on "thin ice" when she pointed out the unquestionably irrational nature of the act in which you have gloried.

All normally functioning LDS parents reject "Christine's" irrational actions; and the more devoutly they believe, the more thoroughly they reject it. Your attempt to locate the cause of her mentally impaired choices in LDS theology instead of her own mental illness is so demonstrably dishonest as to need no further commentary.

If you could find a single instance of an otherwise sane Latter-day Saint parent murdering her children, you would certainly have used it. As it is, you have milked the "Christine Jonsen" case for every bit of demagogical toxin you could get out of it.

And the more you demonstrate the unbridgeable moral gap between your argument and mine, the more you leave poor Beastie with egg on her face.

You should try to be a little kinder to your natural allies.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I think it’s time to agree to disagree. I have attempted, numerous times, to explain the basis for my charge of hypocrisy. It had nothing to do with the respective arguments per se. Pahoran created his own standard of proving hypocrisy based on the moral equivalency of the arguments themselves, ignoring the fact that my accusation was not based in the arguments to begin with. It had to do with using a tragedy caused by a mental illness to score a point.

So you keep saying.

And the policeman (in my analogy, earlier) broke the speed limit too.

Again: it is trivially easy to make two actions appear equivalent, as long as you insist on drawing them in suitably broad brush strokes -- and get to choose how the brush strokes are drawn.

But you resorted to the broad brush strokes only after your previous attempt to argue equivalence from the details had failed.

But let me ask you this question, Beastie: suppose it were the case that every time the Church was wrongly blamed for causing a family tragedy (as it was in the case of Gino and "Christine") the real cause was found in the mental illness of one of the individuals involved. Would it therefore be wrong to ever mention the fact that the Church was not really at fault?

Whatever amount of time I have spent addressing the actual arguments was in an apparently vain attempt to get each party to see why the use of the tragedy caused by mental illness was not even apt, and therefore, exploitative. It appears neither party is willing to concede that point. However, I do note that Pahoran has spent quite a bit of time distancing himself from his past words through openly forbidding me to use his own words from the original thread, to invoking imprecise and fuzzy language, and dismissing portions of his past argument as the “ebb and flow” of discussion and backhanded swipes. I think all these maneuvers on his part indicates, whether or not he’s willing to admit it, that, on at least some level, he recognizes the validity of my point.

Your mind-reading is exactly backwards.

I "openly forbid" nothing at all. I simply point out the truism, accepted by everyone making an honest argument, that the person whose position is under discusion is better qualified than anyone else to state his "thesis" on that subject. I don't know whether your attempt to usurp that role was driven by the exigencies of a weak argument, or if it is merely a manifestation of pervasive arrogance and an obsessive need to be in control.

The fact that you are so unwilling to face is that what you were pleased to call my "thesis" was nothing of the sort. It was a pastiche of comments, cobbled together from different posts in response to various comments by other posters. Calling it a "thesis" was manipulative and self-serving.

It is my right to explain, clarify and if necessary correct anything I previously said. If I said something that was wrong, I was prepared to say so; and in fact I did say so. I think the fact that you have attempted to make something sinister out of that indicates, whether or not you're willing to admit it, that, on at least some level, you recognise the invalidity of your point.

I also notice that you have not addressed the fact that DrW, your natural ally, has backslid from his previous (partial and heavily qualified) expression of repentance, and is again attempting to exploit the "Christine Jonsen" case.

Since we are at the point in the discussion where we are going to simply repeat ourselves, I think it’s time for me to move on. I will preemptively state that Pahoran is incorrect if he claims my fatigue with this topic indicates some sort of victory on his part.

Have fun!

That's fine. I will simply accept that you have nothing more to say.

Although it's not obvious to me how that is a change from what has gone before.

Regards,
Pahoran