Should Mopologists "listen carefully to those who leave the Church"?

[Tom]

Moreover, as we’ve become more and more aware, human memory is a malleable thing, affected by the “rememberer’s” current mental, emotional, psychological, social, and ideological state. Such things need to be taken into account.

A recent comment about, well, me will illustrate the point. It comes from someone with whom I was once somewhat acquainted. We would encounter each other at annual FAIR conferences, which he attended from out of state, and, although we weren’t close, our interactions were friendly. Since then, his circumstances have changed considerably. He has, for example, left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps (or so it seems to me) with some anger and bitterness — I think, too, that there have been some other personal challenges, of which I know very little — and, among other things, he has become a moderately active participant on what I call the Peterson Obsession Board.

…

Before I sat down to write this blog entry, I asked my wife whether she remembered my having told the story. She did. I asked whether, in telling it, I had ever boasted of my brilliant triumph over the hapless Jehovah’s Witness official. For what it’s worth, she could not remember my having done so. Had I not, rather, always used it as a regrettable cautionary tale? That, she says, is how she’s always heard me tell it. It’s how I remember telling it, as well. It’s how I’ve always thought about it.

There was one experience in particular…there was a Jehova’s Witness who came and he and his supervisor were confronting the missionaries. They had me come and deal with them. Well, I creamed them. Just frankly it was embarrassing. They just weren’t that good. And I just beat them into the ground.

https://youtu.be/XtpPi3q07MM

On either side of this story, Dan tells about how much he hated it. But to me that seems a bit like the cockroach in the ice cream. Dan is absolutely gloating. “Creamed. Embarrassing. Beat into the ground.”

Come in, Dan. If the main message you wanted to send was that you felt awful being right, this was not the way to communicate it.

The real lesson is that there are no winners in a Bible bashing session. But DCP still has his 19 year old missionary mindset that he’s defending the one true church. He still thinks that he “won.” He hasn’t learned a thing.

An excellent illustration of the malleability of memory is the Afore’s erroneous claim about the content of a Georgetown University student newspaper article about the then-new Washington D.C. temple.

Quite an astonishing post appeared recently on "SeN." Depending on how you want to read it, it's either the most disingenuous thing that the Afore has ever written, or it is a colossal watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics. The impetus for the post appears to be a book that virtually none of them has actually read--it's called Torn: Why People We Love are Leaving the Church and What We Can Learn from Them. The book has already garnered negative reviews at the "Interpreter" blog and from Ralph "The Doink" Hancock, which is unsurprising, because the book (apparently--full disclosure: I haven't read it either) is sympathetic towards the views of people who leave the LDS Church.

What's peculiar, though, is this remark from the Afore:

So that I’m not misunderstood — though, realistically, not being misunderstood is an Impossible Dream for me, since I’m obsessively monitored and critiqued by a small and anonymous online cabal for whom misunderstanding me daily appears to be a duty modeled on George Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate — I want to state, explicitly, that I believe that we should listen carefully to those who leave the Church, and that we should treat them kindly and with charity.

So, obviously, the seriousness is undermined at the outset thanks to the lengthy, passive-aggressive disclaimer, but the final bit of this is, frankly, shocking and very hard to believe. To clarify: I *do* believe that the Mopologists genuinely think that it's worthwhile to "listen carefully to those who leave the Church," but there is no way that they would do this in the spirit of "kindness" or "charity." That seems to be either an outright falsehood or Fantasyland-style wishful thinking. Instead, the Mopologists want to "listen carefully to those who leave the Church" so that they can go into Attack Mode: showing the whole world how utterly wrong the leave-takers' views are, how evil they are, how stupid/incompetent/ugly/unclean/amoral/etc. they are. There is not one iota of evidence that the Mopologists have ever, in half a century, lifted a single finger in the spirit of treating apostates "kindly and with charity." (They can feel free to supply just *ONE* example, if this is what they believe.)

And some of the remarks from Allen Wyatt and "The Doink" are instructive:

Years ago, in the distant past when John Dehlin was still a member of the Church, I was at a forum held at UVU. John was one of the forum participants, and was advocating the same kinder, gentler Church that is reflected in Ralph Hancock's comment in the OP.

Eventually the floor was opened to questions, and my question was simple: "Why should the testimony of those who leave be assumed to be of higher value than the testimony of those who stay?" John was not able to provide an answer at that point, nor do I think one could be provided now.

I have not read Torn, but I have read about Torn. To the extent that Jeff Strong suggests that the testimony of those who leave is of more value than the testimony of those who stay, I would find that a fatal flaw in any suggestions of change based on unequal valuation of those testimonies.

So, is there some kind of competition here? Wyatt's entire response frames the issue in terms of hostility--as if granting any credence to the leave-takers will automatically mean that loyal LDS testimonies have less "value." And what does that even mean, anyway--for a testimony to have comparative "value"? ("My testimony is better than yours!") Is this the 4th grade or something? And Wyatt's last point, about "change," is telling as well. His attitude appears to be one of intransigence: "I'll *NEVER* change! Because you're WRONG!!"

Meanwhile, Hancock adopts a more arrogant stance:

Young’s (and Strong’s) premise is that we must consider those leaving the church to be in the right so that we can learn from them. Any consideration of the possibility that dissidents might be in the wrong and not always necessarily the best judges of their own choices is dismissed at the outset. The dissident or estranged is always perfectly innocent and even wise. Meanwhile, any members who would question the soundness or the rightness of decisions to leave are quickly classified as “country club” false-Christians who are obsessed with “gate-keeping.” Any attempt to understand falling away that fails absolutely to respect the “unique journey” of every individual is dismissed as “transactional” thinking, that is, to a style of belief that links eternal rewards with obedience to law, to meaningful standards of moral agency, and to eternal standards of exalted character.

The Mopologists have always been "gate-keepers," and have, of course, even gone after faithful Latter-day Saints (such as the Heartlanders and the Transhumanists). Despite what the Afore says, they *don't* seem to see every exit from the Church as a real "tragedy." Instead, they gleefully target those they think should be kicked out.

In a sense, though, this is a massive victory for enemies of the Church. The more the Mopologists and those like them continue to dig in their heels, the more they will alienate people and thus accelerate the exit of more people from the Church's ranks. It's yet another case of stubbornness coming back to bite them on the ass.

In the end, then, I'm going to have to vote for "disingenuousness" on this one, and not a watershed moment after all. Perhaps a moment of retrenchment, though, and yet another opportunity for the Mopologists to drop the mask of "niceness" and show their true colors.

I must confess that I am pleased to see that the Afore believes that “we should listen carefully to those who leave the Church, and that we should treat them kindly and with charity.” At the same time, I cannot forget the anecdote he told at the FAIR conference in 2017 about “a young returned missionary, husband, and father, a graduate student in a distant state” and his glib prescription for the man’s troubles.

[Doctor Steuss]

There was one experience in particular…there was a Jehova’s Witness who came and he and his supervisor were confronting the missionaries. They had me come and deal with them. Well, I creamed them. Just frankly it was embarrassing. They just weren’t that good. And I just beat them into the ground.

This reads like the "regrettable cautionary tale" was one of Jehova's Witness' regret, and a cautionary tale of going toe-to-toe with any of the FARMS crew. At least to me.

He is spot on about how malleable our memories are. In fact, every time we recall a memory, we risk it being altered when it is put back into the ole mental archive. If you have ever had a family member telling a story about an event you were a part of, and their version doesn't match your own, it very well may be that they sincerely remember it the way they are telling it. There's also a chance that in you remembering your version (as they recall their version), that neither of you will remember it that exact way ever again. When we take a memory out of the ole long term storage (and when we send it back into our long-term memory), there's a brief time where it's basically unstable and susceptible to being rewritten. The process is called "memory reconsolidation."

Of course, when you have someone with a documented history of plagiarism, broken gentlemen's agreements, and other ethically questionable activities, it can be difficult to determine how much is a memory that has been rewritten by the brain's natural tomfoolery, and how much is self-serving massaging of the past.

For Fun: Reconsolidation and the Dynamic Nature of Memory

[I Have Questions]

There was one experience in particular…there was a Jehova’s Witness who came and he and his supervisor were confronting the missionaries. They had me come and deal with them. Well, I creamed them. Just frankly it was embarrassing. They just weren’t that good. And I just beat them into the ground.

This reads like the "regrettable cautionary tale" was one of Jehova's Witness' regret, and a cautionary tale of going toe-to-toe with any of the FARMS crew. At least to me.

He is spot on about how malleable our memories are. In fact, every time we recall a memory, we risk it being altered when it is put back into the ole mental archive. If you have ever had a family member telling a story about an event you were a part of, and their version doesn't match your own, it very well may be that they sincerely remember it the way they are telling it. There's also a chance that in you remembering your version (as they recall their version), that neither of you will remember it that exact way ever again. When we take a memory out of the ole long term storage (and when we send it back into our long-term memory), there's a brief time where it's basically unstable and susceptible to being rewritten. The process is called "memory reconsolidation."

Of course, when you have someone with a documented history of plagiarism, broken gentlemen's agreements, and other ethically questionable activities, it can be difficult to determine how much is a memory that has been rewritten by the brain's natural tomfoolery, and how much is self-serving massaging of the past.

For Fun: Reconsolidation and the Dynamic Nature of Memory

Yes. "Beat them into the ground" is code for "listened carefully and responded with respect". Apparently. Because Dan isn't two-faced, no siree.

[huckelberry]

This reads like the "regrettable cautionary tale" was one of Jehova's Witness' regret, and a cautionary tale of going toe-to-toe with any of the FARMS crew. At least to me.

He is spot on about how malleable our memories are. In fact, every time we recall a memory, we risk it being altered when it is put back into the ole mental archive. If you have ever had a family member telling a story about an event you were a part of, and their version doesn't match your own, it very well may be that they sincerely remember it the way they are telling it. There's also a chance that in you remembering your version (as they recall their version), that neither of you will remember it that exact way ever again. When we take a memory out of the ole long term storage (and when we send it back into our long-term memory), there's a brief time where it's basically unstable and susceptible to being rewritten. The process is called "memory reconsolidation."

Of course, when you have someone with a documented history of plagiarism, broken gentlemen's agreements, and other ethically questionable activities, it can be difficult to determine how much is a memory that has been rewritten by the brain's natural tomfoolery, and how much is self-serving massaging of the past.

For Fun: Reconsolidation and the Dynamic Nature of Memory

Yes. "Beat them into the ground" is code for "listened carefully and responded with respect". Apparently. Because Dan isn't two-faced, no siree.

Dr Steuss's observations about memory are well worth remembering. There are bits of family history which remain uncertain as explained above.

I think different reactions are possible but in at some situations I am disappointed with listened carefully and responded with respect. Such may be a method of shutting discussion down, covering over disagreement which could be important. I respect Dan's eagerness to up and argue his view. There is a possibility of new thoughts there instead of a thought ending public respect hiding disagreement.

[I Have Questions]

Yes. "Beat them into the ground" is code for "listened carefully and responded with respect". Apparently. Because Dan isn't two-faced, no siree.

Dr Steuss's observations about memory are well worth remembering. There are bits of family history which remain uncertain as explained above.

I think different reactions are possible but in at some situations I am disappointed with listened carefully and responded with respect. Such may be a method of shutting discussion down, covering over disagreement which could be important. I respect Dan's eagerness to up and argue his view. There is a possibility of new thoughts there instead of a thought ending public respect hiding disagreement.

Do you have any examples that show Dan’s willingness to adopt new thoughts from people with whom he’s arguing?

[Gadianton]

Wait, Dan was the author of the "beat them into the ground" quote?

[huckelberry]

Dr Steuss's observations about memory are well worth remembering. There are bits of family history which remain uncertain as explained above.

I think different reactions are possible but in at some situations I am disappointed with listened carefully and responded with respect. Such may be a method of shutting discussion down, covering over disagreement which could be important. I respect Dan's eagerness to up and argue his view. There is a possibility of new thoughts there instead of a thought ending public respect hiding disagreement.

Do you have any examples that show Dan’s willingness to adopt new thoughts from people with whom he’s arguing?

Perhaps it is selfish of me but I was interested in opening new thoughts for me. I have little concern for Dan having a new thought.

[Doctor Scratch]

Wait, Dan was the author of the "beat them into the ground" quote?

I don't know if "beat them into the ground" is a verbatim quote, but he has definitely used language in the same vein as that. "Mopped the floor." "Creamed"--basically conveying the idea that he absolutely crushed and humiliated these other believers.

[I Have Questions]

Do you have any examples that show Dan’s willingness to adopt new thoughts from people with whom he’s arguing?

Perhaps it is selfish of me but I was interested in opening new thoughts for me. I have little concern for Dan having a new thought.

And has Peterson’s arguing done that for you?

[huckelberry]

Perhaps it is selfish of me but I was interested in opening new thoughts for me. I have little concern for Dan having a new thought.

And has Peterson’s arguing done that for you?

Questions, I found myself puzzling over your question a bit. I am not rembering a y time Peterson directly induced a new idea. I am not inclined to agree with him a lot though there is occasional overlap. I was thinking more of a contribution to a network of discussion. Some pieces of that may more directly contribute than others.

I thought of Dan McClellan who is happy to make sharp criticism of religious views he considers wrong. He can be harsh. I think he has pushed me to reconsider some things . Though I do not agree always he has many valuable contributions.