Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

For this reason I somewhat regret the fact that education about the temple has been so terribly limited in the LDS Church. Lacking any proper intellectual context for what they were going through, people were simply shocked and put off by it all, when that might not have been the case if their preparation for the experience had been adequate.

When I went through, my mother led me to believe it would be a lot stranger than what it turned out to be. As a result, I was not fazed by it.

Temple preparation classes are insufficient preparation, in my opinion.

I remember feeling a bit disappointed in the temple preparation classes, too. The gist was "don't worry about a thing." When my children get to that age they'll be quite a bit more informed than I was.

[_Franktalk]

And I say, if that was how you felt about it, then that was an appropriate reaction for you.

I enjoyed the movie Labyrinth. In the end the lady figures out that the thing she was working hard to overcome had no power over her. If a hand gesture separates one from a church then the hand gesture has power over you. Is it possible that if you give the gesture power then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? I think this is what you may have alluted to in your post. If this had meaning was it a rite of passage based on sorting those out of the world? If so I hate to see it go.

[_Kishkumen]

I enjoyed the movie Labyrinth. In the end the lady figures out that the thing she was working hard to overcome had no power over her. If a hand gesture separates one from a church then the hand gesture has power over you. Is it possible that if you give the gesture power then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy? I think this is what you may have alluted to in your post. If this had meaning was it a rite of passage based on sorting those out of the world? If so I hate to see it go.

I think there is truth to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy in it, if one allowed it to be. The problem with the penalties is that they had become more of a barrier than a vehicle. I think the atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the temple was excessively exaggerated to the point that members were given no tools for contextualizing such things and making them useful. So, they were bound to go. It may be that the entire ritual will someday be reduced to very little symbolic content of the kind I experienced when I first went through. Such is life.

[_Franktalk]

I think there is truth to the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy in it, if one allowed it to be. The problem with the penalties is that they had become more of a barrier than a vehicle. I think the atmosphere of secrecy surrounding the temple was excessively exaggerated to the point that members were given no tools for contextualizing such things and making them useful. So, they were bound to go. It may be that the entire ritual will someday be reduced to very little symbolic content of the kind I experienced when I first went through. Such is life.

I have not been to the Temple yet. Everything is ready and I am waiting for the Holy Spirit to tell me to go. Next week or next year makes no difference to me. But no matter what happens I will take my time and ponder all that I experience. Like many things I may know quickly how to embrace or reject what I experience. But like may other things I may never know. But so far the Holy Ghost has not told me to avoid the Temple. This is very telling to me. It is my belief that the church pushes many to the Temple before they are ready spiritually. But then again it may be a trial by fire. My classes I took were great. They made it clear that much of what goes on can and should be looked at by Old Testament standards. Which means most would not understand it. I love the old Testament because it is the foundation for the New Testament.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I remember that Juliann used to be constantly touting this book on apostasy from NRMs--it was a book edited by a guy named Bromley, If I recall correctly. Juliann was using it to forward her theory about how all LDS apostate "exit narratives" are the same, how they all follow a cookie-cutter pattern and whatnot. My sense was that she was seriously misrepresenting the scholarship. So you can imagine her chagrin when somebody--I think it was Kevin Graham--emailed this guy (or one of the other authors from the book) and asked him about what Juliann was up to. The guy was 100% sympathetic with the apostates! His email, which Kevin posted, said something like, "These people are in pain and deserve our sympathy." In any case, the point of the book--or the portion of it that I read, anyhow--was that apostates from especially problematic NRMs ("cults," if you will) tend to be way more hostile, angry, and proactive in voicing their discontent. Juliann wanted to use this scholarship to show that Mormon apostates are rage-fueled mental basketcases, but what she neglected to say is that the scholarly framework attributes this to the degree to which the NRM is authoritarian and/or "cultish." (And the text didn't use the word "cult," btw--they framed it instead in terms of how "outsider-ish" the NRM is. I.e., if it's way outside of mainstream norms, it is more likely to produce these especially hostile apostates.)

Anyone should have sympathy for people struggling with these events and decisions. There's no need to polemicize any side of the discussion. Your description of the paper does not really match the scholarship, though, and I don't think Mormonism really fits the types of groups discussed by Bromley and others. Interestingly, the vast majority of the research I've seen demonstrates a correlation between exit narrative hostility and exposure to anti-cult socialization.

Which, of course, raises the question: if Mormonism doesn't resemble these groups, then why does it produce such angry apostates? And what "anti-cult" socialization are these people getting? RfM?

See, for example, James R. Lewis, "Apostates and the Legitimation of Repression: Some Historical and Empirical Perspectives on the Cult Controversy," Sociologicai Analysis 49.4 (1989): 386–96;

The Lewis piece is interesting, though the social science seems pretty sloppy, in my opinion. His sample size isn't all that large; he's dismissive of exit counseling (which is viewed as legitimate in some disciplines--e.g., social work); he drew his sample set directly from an "anti-cult" organization. I think his research would have been a lot more persuasive and legitimate if he'd gone looking for pissed-off ex-religionists some place else. Of course there is going to be a correlation between hostility and association with anti-cult groups if the only place you're looking for hostile ex-members is...anti-cult groups.

Massimo Introvigne, "Defectors, Ordinary Leave-takers, and Apostates: A Quantitative Study of Former Members of New Acropolis in France," Nova Religio 3.1 (1999): 83-99.

Introvigne alludes to the Bromley piece I had in mind. It's called The Politics of Religious Apostasy. (Google it and you can read the portion online.) Basically, he suggests that exit narratives depend upon the "social location of the organization," and that less "legitimate" organizations tend to produce more hostile leave-takers. Based on his description of the different levels of legitimacy, I think that Mormonism would fit in the middle category, and in fact Bromley, on pg. 6, seems to be saying pretty much exactly that.

Apologists tend to avoid acknowledging what ought to be pretty obvious, which is that the organizations bear some of the responsibility for the leave-takers' hostility. You can't just attribute this entirely to the leave-takers, or to "anti-cult" groups. Sometimes the NRMs or "organizations" have real problems, and as Bromely appears to be saying, this can genuinely contribute to the anger and hostility.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

And I say, if that was how you felt about it, then that was an appropriate reaction for you.

I read that in Snape's voice. Heh.

- VRDRC

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Another good parallel, but your perspective obviously represents a bit informed a take than most who are talking about it on the internet.

Well, that was kinda crappy.

- VRDRC

[_Kishkumen]

Massimo Introvigne, "Defectors, Ordinary Leave-takers, and Apostates: A Quantitative Study of Former Members of New Acropolis in France," Nova Religio 3.1 (1999): 83-99.

Introvigne alludes to the Bromley piece I had in mind. It's called The Politics of Religious Apostasy. (Google it and you can read the portion online.) Basically, he suggests that exit narratives depend upon the "social location of the organization," and that less "legitimate" organizations tend to produce more hostile leave-takers. Based on his description of the different levels of legitimacy, I think that Mormonism would fit in the middle category, and in fact Bromley, on pg. 6, seems to be saying pretty much exactly that.

Introvigne's personal history is quite intriguing:

Gradually, he shifted his main interests from philosophy to sociology, and from law to religion. In 1987 he presented a paper at the international conference of the Mormon History Association in Oxford, where he started a long-lasting co-operation with Swiss historian Jean-François Mayer and with the Utah lawyer and historian Michael W. Homer, which would eventually lead to the establishment of CESNUR in 1988.

He seems to be a controversial figure in his own right.

Apologists tend to avoid acknowledging what ought to be pretty obvious, which is that the organizations bear some of the responsibility for the leave-takers' hostility. You can't just attribute this entirely to the leave-takers, or to "anti-cult" groups. Sometimes the NRMs or "organizations" have real problems, and as Bromely appears to be saying, this can genuinely contribute to the anger and hostility.

Agreed.

[_Kishkumen]

By the by, Introvigne's involvement in this lay organization of conservative Catholics is quite intriguing. Look at their stated goals:

Alleanza Cattolica intends to realize the establishment of a Christian temporal order and is moved by political charity, namely the love of the common good. Its aim is promoting and building a society "fit for man and in keeping with God’s plan"(Pope John Paul II) – in the perspective of His greater glory, also social – , that is to say a society which can be justly called Christian, since it respects God’s rights and lives consciously inside the borders of Church’s doctrine and moral.

The hope of the establishment of such a civilization is sustained by Our Lady’s promise at Fatima: "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph".

Sounds suspiciously like Dominionism in the United States, in my opinion.

[_maklelan]

Which, of course, raises the question: if Mormonism doesn't resemble these groups, then why does it produce such angry apostates?

It doesn't resemble the small anti-social groups discussed by Bromley, but it certainly is viewed as subversive by apostates, and it's the anti-cult movement that galvanizes the hostile apostates, not necessarily the relationship of the group to Bromley's particular case studies.

And what "anti-cult" socialization are these people getting? RfM?

That or any other group actively antagonizing Latter-day Saints (CARM, Walter Martin, Ed Decker, James White, etc.).

The Lewis piece is interesting, though the social science seems pretty sloppy, in my opinion. His sample size isn't all that large;

It would have been nice to have a larger sample, but his conclusions are consistent with more recent work.

he's dismissive of exit counseling (which is viewed as legitimate in some disciplines--e.g., social work);

In the context of anti-cult and counter-cult movements, I don't know of any scholars who view deprogramming and exit counseling as legitimate.

he drew his sample set directly from an "anti-cult" organization.

He says he had two pools of participants, one drawn from the NRMs themselves and one drawn from lists provided by anti-cult groups. He points out the consistency of their attitudes is supported by the similar breakdown of their experiences.

I think his research would have been a lot more persuasive and legitimate if he'd gone looking for pissed-off ex-religionists some place else. Of course there is going to be a correlation between hostility and association with anti-cult groups if the only place you're looking for hostile ex-members is...anti-cult groups.

But it wasn't the only place he went looking, and he accounted for that potential bias.

Introvigne alludes to the Bromley piece I had in mind. It's called The Politics of Religious Apostasy. (Google it and you can read the portion online.)

Where he talks about subversive groups as opposed to the two other types. I've read the book.

Basically, he suggests that exit narratives depend upon the "social location of the organization," and that less "legitimate" organizations tend to produce more hostile leave-takers.

"Legitimate" in the eyes of the apostates.

Based on his description of the different levels of legitimacy, I think that Mormonism would fit in the middle category, and in fact Bromley, on pg. 6, seems to be saying pretty much exactly that.

You appear to be confusing an objective judgment of legitimacy by the scholar with a description of the views of the groups' opponents and apostates. Also, he was not fitting Mormonism into his own model on p. 6, but describing Mauss' own framework. Mormonism isn't described as occupying any single particular spot so much as occupying different spots for different people over time.

Apologists tend to avoid acknowledging what ought to be pretty obvious, which is that the organizations bear some of the responsibility for the leave-takers' hostility.

Certainly organizations play an active role to some degree, and some groups shoulder more responsibility than others, particularly the violent ones, but you've not shown that this research is pointing in that direction.

You can't just attribute this entirely to the leave-takers, or to "anti-cult" groups. Sometimes the NRMs or "organizations" have real problems, and as Bromely appears to be saying, this can genuinely contribute to the anger and hostility.

[/quote]

I agree that organizations have problems, and Mormonism is not entirely passive in ex-members' exit narrative, but I don't see Bromley saying that in this particular publication. In fact, he states that the focus of the book is "the role of apostates in the controversy surrounding those contemporary new religious movements that are deemed 'subversive'" (5, emphasis mine). Can you provide a page number or a quote?