Brainwashing

Now, my question for this case is, Was this brainwashing?

Android339

You've made the answer pretty obvious. The answer is no.

As to what pertains to religion, bringing a child into a religion or teaching them explicitly secular values is not brainwashing. However, once that child has made a choice to believe in another religion or in no religion at all, the parent must accept his choice. If the parents were to scold him or punish him for making that choice while promising a reward if they convert back to the parents' religious beliefs, then I would say that constitutes as brainwashing.

The question I will pose to everyone is what exactly constitutes brainwashing, social influence, and how they are used by various factions (not limited to religions), and how this relates to the scientific understanding of brainwashing and social influence.

It is obvious that there are several atheists who consider any family that brings up their children in their religion as brainwashers, but I posit that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific understanding of what brainwashing really is. It is natural for children to want to be like their parents, but such an influence by the parents does not constitute brainwashing, unless if when they are older they start to reject their parent's beliefs, and the parents then resort to forceful and invasive methods.

Android339

There's only one of me. I agree that it is natural for a child to want to be like - and develop like their parents. This is especially true of religious convictions, but also true of academic achievement and social status. But I maintain that my perspective of brainwashing does encompass such social interactions that mould character. 

 

My rationale for this argument results from these definitions of what brainwashing is:

- Wikipedia (under the article Mind Control): Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual 'systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated'.

Android339

Did you miss the bit at the top that says it does not represent a world-wide view and is particularly American in its focus. (I'm in the UK.) Perhaps you also missed this bit from the page, under the paragraph heading, "An expanding Concept":

"Mind control is a general term for a number of controversial theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated at will by outside sources. According to sociologist James T. Richardson, some of the concepts of brainwashing have spread to other fields and are applied "with some success" in contexts unrelated to the earlier cult controversies, such as custody battles and child sexual abuse cases, "where one parent is accused of brainwashing the child to reject the other parent, and in child sex abuse cases where one parent is accused of brainwashing the child to make sex abuse accusations against the other parent" 

  

- Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.

- The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary: inducing a person to modify his or her beliefs, attitudes, or behavior by conditioning through various forms of pressure or torture.

- The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs. Usually associated with military and political interrogation and religious conversion, brainwashing attempts, through prolonged stress, to break down an individual's physical and mental defenses. Brainwashing techniques range from vocal persuasion and threats to punishment, physical deprivation, mind-altering drugs, and severe physical torture.

- Oxford Dictionary: (to) make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

The commonalities between all of these definitions:

1. One already has a set of beliefs.

2. This set of beliefs is being changed and modified against a person's will.

3. The methods used to achieve this are unethical, manipulative, forceful, invasive, etc.

Android339

I don't hold each one of those commonalities to be true for brainwashing. For example, a Scientologist would not accept that they are brainwashed and freely choose to participate in Scientology. (The purpose of their further participation is the notion of continuous re-enforcement that's required for brainwashing to endure.) The definition used in your own source also does not fit those criteria.

 

Following the example of my Religion & Revolution's professor, I will now bring up a case and see how it relates to this topic. I picked this topic because it was brought up in the thread that was locked, and I am still in shock as to how such a case could be considered brainwashing. Granted, the one who argued such a case said he preferred terms like moulding, but while still claiming that it was, indeed, brainwashing.

Earlier this year I had an opportunity to go on Trek, which was organized by the Stake Youth Committee. One had to be 14 to 18 to go (as a child, but adult supervisors were older, obviously), and it was completely voluntary. We re-enacted the trials that the early pioneers went through when migrating to the West using handcarts, and thusly were only able to use tools and whatnot that the early pioneers had used. It lasted a total of two days (a half day, a day, and another half day). It was basically a camping trip with a theme. Now, my question for this case is, Was this brainwashing?

Android339

Don't forget - it was you that introduced the term. Don't you accept that Mormons do get "moulded" into their faith by virtue of these experiences?  I said before and repeat here (in attempting to avoid your continued misunderstanding) that the event in itself is not brainwashing. I have also demonstrated that there is a lot more to the event than the event itself. It's far more than a themed camping trip for many Mormons.

There's only one of you, but I wanted to spread the discussion. In any case, you've presented part of the problem. "My perspective of brainwashing..." Now, here is the question that I have for you, specifically. Does your view of brainwashing match the definition as provided by the scientific and medical community?

Android339

The scientific and medical community don't seem to have a consensus view on mind control and brainwashing, as I've alluded to with mu 3rd paragraph from your definition. My view does fit with the third paragraph, that talks about children being formed with particular intent.

I don't fit the Merriam Webster's definition of an atheist, so I'll pass on them.  The OED's definition is pretty tight, since it does not require force and relies on a systematic process. 

 

So what's the UK's definition? Oxford is in England, right? I provided a definition by the Oxford Dictionary, and they pretty much have the same definition. I can't imagine there'd be much of a difference. And can you explain to me how that paragraph relates to the brainwashing techniques as utilized in the Trek experience?

Android339

I've told you what I think. I don't represent the UK, just myself. The last paragraph (if you read it) shows how brainwashing is used in young people.

As far as you don't hold each one of those commonalities to be true for brainwashing, you have your own, personal definition of brainwashing that is seprate from that of the scientific and medical community. In what way do Scientologists brainwash people? In what ways are the Scientologists' methods of brainwashing people similar to Trek? 

Android339

There is no concrete definition as you suggest. Read your own links to see that for yourself, rather than cherry-picking the best bits and leaving all the other stuff out. 

Do you think Scientologists are brainwashed? 

I know I introduced the term. I really couldn't care less right now. Do you or do you not believe that Trek (even more than the "event itself") brainwashes people? Because from what you have said, you still maintain that. Now, in what way does Trek brainwash people according to the brainwashing criteria as provided by the scientific and medical community?

Android339

I see Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc as structure that are all built on brainwashing. I think I've already stated the criteria used to re-enforce religious ideas onto Mormon followers. 

The scientific and medical community do have a solid consensus. There are different types of brainwashing, but they all rely on the common criteria of radically altering one's beliefs through pressure. I know what they're talking about, as my mother has tried to tell me that my step-father is better than my real father on numerous occassions, and this usually involves guilt tripping, which is a systematic process using pressure. A camping trip by volunteered youth doesn't compare at all to that experience, and I would know. That piece of the article doesn't show what methods are used in trying to get their children to think that way, but usually it involves deliberately lying and slander.

Android339

If there is such a consensus, why does the Wiki article you provided have a big disclaimer slapped across the top of it? Why does it also, in its third paragraph, discuss the emerging perception of influence by interaction and the subtleties of indoctrination. People feel the need to conform to all sorts of social pressure. 

But it does require pressure.

Android339

It is interesting reading about the experiments done on people to discover research on social pressure and group conformity. Please let me know what you think of that scientific research into the subject.

 

I didn't say it couldn't be used in young people, but it still involves the radical altering of one's views through pressure, whereas Trek 1) doesn't radically alter anyone's views or 2) use pressure, forcible or otherwise, to do so.

Android339

I accept that is your view and I'm not trying to change it. 

The definition is pretty solid at it's core, which was exactly my point. The radical altering of one's views through pressure.

Android339

It all depends on what you call pressure. What do you think of the Milgram experiment? 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Do you think Scientologists are brainwashed? 

Android339

I wouldn't know, because I don't exactly know of their methods of brainwashing, and if they brainwash people, then please tell me how they do it and how it relates to Trek. However, I will repeat what I said before - to the extent that it is against their will, and radically alters their previous beliefs, then yes, by definition, it is brainwashing.

You do know what brainwashing is, but you don't know if Scientologists are brainwashed or not? I think I've established that brainwashing does not necessarily involve being against ones will. Rather I see it as the opposite - entirely coercive!  

 

What criteria? I don't remember you saying anything that involves the accepted definition of brainwashing.

Android339

It depends whose doing the accepting, doesn't it? 

Phillip Zimbardo, professor of psychology at Stanford University, former and current president of the American Psychological Association (APA):

"A remarkable thing about cult mind control is that it's so ordinary in the tactics and strategies of social influence employed. They are variants of well-known social psychological principles of compliance, conformity, persuasion, dissonance, reactance, framing, emotional manipulation, and others that are used on all of us daily to entice us: to buy, to try, to donate, to vote, to join, to change, to believe, to love, to hate the enemy."

He was responsible for the Sanford Prison Experiment

And as I have said before, all brainwashing is social influence, but not all social influence is brainwashing. If you would, please show me where there is a lack of consensus, and I will concede the point, but as for the third paragraph, I already showed you what I thought of it, and it doesn't show that brainwashing is anything other than a radical altering of one's views through pressure. Guilt tripping, for instance. People feel the need to conform to all sorts of social pressure, but that doesn't make all social pressure equivalent to brainwashing. Is peer pressure brainwashing?

Android339

That third paragraph was in your evidence for brainwashing! Now you're trying to define brainwashing. The need to conform to pressure is at the core of thought control. Not all social pressure is tantamount to brainwashing, but it may have a brainwashing effect. These are methods used in brainwashing and not brainwashing in itself.

I agree that it is social influence, but not brainwashing.Android339

I think that social influences are forms of brainwashing. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

It all depends on what you call pressure. What do you think of the Milgram experiment? 

Android339

I think that it doesn't prove your point at all. It suggested that the soldiers under Hitler were only following orders, but against their deepest convictions that it was wrong, again showing that this is not brainwashing, but a willingness to conform to the wishes of an authority figure, while still knowing that what they are doing is wrong. That isn't even brainwashing in the loosest sense of the term, as their beliefs are not changed.

I think the experiment has been designed to show how people want to conform. These are all tools that demonstrate the extent of how people can be manipulated without their direct control.  

As I said, I don't know if Scientologists are brainwashed or not because I am not aware of any methods that Scientologists use that could be considered brainwashing, and I asked you to present such methods, and you have failed thus far.

Android339

Would you like me to point you in the direction of Scientology, so you can find out for yourself?  

Try the scientific and medical community.

Android339

But you are not the scientific and medical community that you imagine share your view.

He noted that they are variants of well known social psychological principles, but it is the manipulation of such principles that makes it mind control, not the natural occurrence of such things. You have to be using such techniques to alter one's beliefs against their will. Again, not all social influence is brainwashing, but all brainwashing is social influence.

By your applying everything he said to brainwashing, you admit that advertising, peer pressure, commercials, and such things are also examples of brainwashing. Do you believe this?

Android339

Yes I do. They are all forms of mind control. 

Which proved what? It simply suggested the situational theory of behaviour, but the attribution ends when the experience ends, which means it is not similar to Trek in that respect, as you posit that Trek has long lasting consequences. As the article states, Zimbardo had lost sight of his role as a psychologist himself. Did he brainwash himself?

Android339

Read up about it and see for yourself. It demonstrates how people react to changes in their environment. The experiment (and many subsequent attempts at re-creating it) all ended prematurely due to the nature of the emotional challenge of the test.

Your continuing in your faith does not stop after Trek. Trek is a re-enforcement of your faith. Are you now making personal attacks on a leading psychologist for not agreeing with your own assessment of mind control?

One of the core concepts of brainwashing is that it is against one's will. Nobody ever knowingly volunteers to brainwashing. The fact that people sometimes don't know they're being brainwashed is evidence of the fact that the people doing the brainwashing don't want them to know that they're being brainwashed, because otherwise they would be opposed to it. Again, not all social influence is brainwashing, and social influence is not only used in the context of brainwashing. It also occurs naturally.

Android339

I disagree with the idea of will here. People often subscribe to offeres of "life improvement" or other "benefits" of joining. There is also the scare-tactic of what will happen to those who don't that often gets used.

If you accept that people don't know they are being brainwashed (use used this fact in your evidence), how can you say that it's against one's will?   

Then everybody, every day, is being brainwashed by the society around them. Schools brainwash people every day, even the public ones. Parents, no matter what their beliefs, continuously brainwash their children. Going to football games brainwashes people, and every single camping trip ever (even one's with the intent to bring unity to the family) are simply the malignant forces of brainwashing occurring by everyone around you.

You are the Glenn Beck of atheism.

Android339

Who is he? Why not STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, PLEASE?

I think you are right. I find it interesting that you substitute your religion for your family - in relation to camping trips. 

I never said that people couldn't be manipulated without their direct control. Note that in the experiment, the people recognized that there was something wrong with what they were doing, but they did it anyway. This isn't brainwashing, as it did not radically alter the beliefs of any of the participants against their will. Their beliefs stayed the same. Their actions changed. I'm saying that the need for conformity isn't a result of brainwashing, but is a natural occurrence.Android339

How do you know that those actions would not have become habitualised and institutionalised in a real situation? The experiment was designed to protect all the participants, but reality offers no such protection.

Stop avoiding the question. How does Scientology brainwash people?

Android339

You are avoiding the question I asked you at least 4 times now. Find out about Scientology, then report back to me please, if you think it EITHER does or does not brainwash people - Don't know won't do.

I am not them, correct, but I do share their view.

Android339

I don't subscribe to your argument form authority here. I have shown there is a spectrum of belief form academe - that is broadening the definition of the term.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Yes I do. They are all forms of mind control. 

Android339

I'm sorry that you are so easily controlled by people around you.

As I understand that they might be, I can take steps to always seek objectivity. But if you don't think such things can control your mind, you are far more susceptible to their suggestions.  

I did read it. Otherwise I would not have been able to respond. Yes, people react to changes in their environment, but that doesn't constitute mind control. There is nothing invasive or forcible in changes in the environment. You are lowering mind control to a less-than-malignant level that doesn't do the term justice.

Android339

People react to changes in their environment? I think you've badly misunderstood the experiment and the readiness of people to accept things, which is a key feature in the success of brainwashing.  

My continuing in my faith didn't start with Trek, either. Trek was a fun time. And I am not making personal attacks on him, as I do not see him as disagreeing with my assessment of mind control. 

Android339

I'm sure you had great fun at the Trek and learned much about early Mormonism. 

I suppose that in the end I really don't care whether or not he sees it as brainwashing, considering he views everything that occurs around us as brainwashing, and thus Trek doesn't do more of a job of brainwashing people than anything else in the world.

RationalAtheist, you claim that religions have a foundation on brainwashing, but using your logic, every social group ever, from the Boy Scouts of America to the Rational Response Squad, employs brainwashing techniques. You have removed the teeth from the term brainwashing, and also made the lack of brainwashing because of your extension of the term impossible. Indeed, brainwashing is no longer something that should be stopped, as social life without it is impossible when using your logic.

I suppose I can tolerate that you've turned it into such a mild force.

After all, Trek is no more brainwashing than going to a liberal university or going to the Rally to Restore Sanity that I will enjoy going to tomorrow.

Android339

Is it the end now? Thanks for letting me think what I like.

I do see brainwashing as having a particular place in religion. I think that some structures, like many universities, encourage independent thinking and teach people how to think critically - for themselves. They do this by encouraging skeptical enquiry into a wide variety of independent sources of evidence. Scientific enquiry is relatively free of brainwashing (although it does still exist in some areas). The scientific method is a good example of a structure that rejects personal bias and brainwashing well.

I think  dependence and re-enforcement are required for brainwashing to be maintained. I think religions all have these elements - unlike the scientific method. Religions teach people to accept and depend - not to discriminate or use evidence aside from their own dogma. I'll ask you one more time, did you grow in your faith through the Trek? 

What's the "Rally to Restore Sanity" about?

I'm just not sure why you're so afraid of brainwashing given your own definition of it, considering from what I've seen it's not very effective, and the choice to remain in the faith is ultimately up to the developing adult. I still contend that it is only brainwashing if the actual beliefs of the one being "brainwashed" are radically altered, and if not, then it's their own fault for staying in a religion they don't believe in.

There are many religions that teach only acceptance and dependence, but I would suggest that Mormonism tries to avoid this in principle. Joseph Smith himself said that intelligence is the glory of God, and told us to seek us out of the best books wisdom, and he was speaking of temporal matters. Even in the School of the Prophets (an early attempt at educating the saints), they were taught the sciences as well as they were able. Indeed, I have decided that one of the main things I want my children to learn is how to think, and how to think critically.

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear is a rally here in America led by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert with the message of "Take it down a notch... for America". There has been a lot of slandering and crazy talk by the Tea Party (the fringe, radical edge of the Republican Party), and by the media as well, and they were for promoting calming down, calmly talking things over, "loudness does not equal truth", thinking it over, etc. There were over 200, 000 people there, which I am happy to say trounced Glenn Beck's rally of 87, 000 people.

Android339

I'm not afraid of brainwashing - I'm fascinated by it. I think it highly effective, hence all the people swearing by their disparate faiths. I think religious thought radically alters the minds of adherents. Belief is all part of being brainwashed.

I think Mormonism is actually worse (or better in some perspectives) at re-enforcing acceptance and dependence in its followers. There are many written accounts and videoed accounts of people leaving Mormonism and the difficulties they faced with the church. I just saw this one. I don't expect you to comment on it since its so long (multi-part) If you do genuinely seek wisdom, how can you account for the seer stones, the ancient Americans, the philandering and bigamy of your founder, the Book of the Abraham not being "as translated"- as recently purchased my the church, the corrections to Christian doctrine, let alone Christian theology, itself?

Interesting rally news. Your rally didn't fight with the other rally, did they? (I'm getting ideas when you say "trounced"!)

Belief is all part of being brainwashed.RationalAtheist

That is a delightfully offensive thing to say. :P

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]Belief is all part of being brainwashed.GabuEx

That is a delightfully offensive thing to say. :P

I meant to say religious belief. Apologies atheists! 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]Belief is all part of being brainwashed.RationalAtheist

That is a delightfully offensive thing to say. :P

I meant to say religious belief. Apologies atheists! 

Well I think my biggest question here is this: given your picture of brainwashing, why would someone care if they were brainwashed?  Heck, why would someone even want to avoid it?  It seems to me that the life of an un-brainwashed individual is terribly sad and lonely, considering that it would appear that basically anyone who has a functional relationship with his or her parents, who has friends with whom he or she interacts, who is a member of a community or an organization, or, well, just basically has some sort of human contact in life has been brainwashed to one degree or another.  I would almost consider it a compliment to be called brainwashed, if that's the conception of brainwashing we're operating under.

Well I think my biggest question here is this: given your picture of brainwashing, why would someone care if they were brainwashed?  Heck, why would someone even want to avoid it?  It seems to me that the life of an un-brainwashed individual is terribly sad and lonely, considering that it would appear that basically anyone who has a functional relationship with his or her parents, who has friends with whom he or she interacts, who is a member of a community or an organization, or, well, just basically has some sort of human contact in life has been brainwashed to one degree or another.  I would almost consider it a compliment to be called brainwashed, if that's the conception of brainwashing we're operating under.

GabuEx

I'm not sure I ever said that every interaction we have could be considered brainwashing, but the interactions we have that unreasonably and consisently "fix" ideas in our heads could be construed as such.

As to why they should care - I've always maintained that they would strongly reject the idea that they are brainwashed, so ingrained are the powerful suggestions in their minds. So they wouldn't care that they are brainwashed, but would care deeply about the concepts they've been brainwashed to believe.

As to why it should be avoided - perhaps some forms of brainwashing - and the techniques used - are beneficial. Educational improvements have and are still being made through psychological understanding over incentivisation and motivation. NLP techniques show some people how to brainwash themselves to avoid undesirable behaviours or emotions.

Other forms of brainwashing are highly dangerous and can lead to religious radicallisation, subservient and oppressed behaviour in service of an organisation that uses such techniques, or merely a refusal to rationalise. 

Then atheistic beliefs are also a part of being brainwashed. You can't have one without the other.

In my personal studies I have understood that such attacks on the Church are misconstrued, and this while I was an atheist. There are always difficulties in leaving a social group that you have for so long been a part of, and this does not represent a problem with Mormonism itself, but the problem of, well, like I said, leaving a social group that you have so long been a part of. I continuously seek truth, and I find it naive to believe that those who sincerely seek truth are only led to atheism.

And no, there was no physical fighting, but trounced in that over half of the people went to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear than a previous rally that promoted fear and, well, insanity, from my point of view.

A link to more information about the rally can be found here.

Android339

I don't think atheism has as much to do with brainwashing as you think. I arrived at my own view by myself. No-one talked to me about atheism. People spoke mainly about Christianity and Judaism religions. If I am brainwashed, I don't know who would be responsible.

I think the interesting thing about that clip is that is was from a convention held for ex-Mormons. I think it unusual for such organisations to exist unless there are some issues with the faith and the treatment of doubters. This assertion is backed up by the Amazon book list of ex-Mormon writers.

Those questions are not "attacks on the church", but honest, sensible rational questions. Your defensiveness about these jarring issues with Mormonism shows me how far your willingness to seek the truth goes.

I was only joshing about your riotous rally. As if you'd do such a thing on a rally for moderation!

I arrived at Mormonism by myself as well, but you maintain that I have been brainwashed. By your logic, regardless of whether or not we have "arrived at our particular beliefs by ourselves", we have been influenced by some degree by other people. I would maintain that to be consistent with your logic, you have been influenced by others, no matter how subtle.

Android339

I have been influenced, but I have not been told what to believe about atheism I had to find it out about it by myself, from various sources. Did you arrive at Mormonism before going on the Trek? 

When people leave a social group they have been a part of for a long time, I would find it natural that they would feel the need to justify their decisions. Any Mormon's undue treatment of doubters does not represent a problem with Mormonism itself, but with the particular person who is treating the doubter unfairly. Consider the 11th Article of Faith as written by Joseph Smith. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."Android339

That quote does nothing to offset the stuff said quite eloquently by the many people leaving the faith in their annual conferences. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Those questions are not "attacks on the church", but honest, sensible rational questions. Your defensiveness about these jarring issues with Mormonism shows me how far your willingness to seek the truth goes.

Android339

How was I being defensive? I thought I responded in a thoughtful way as was pertinent to this discussion. If it was your desire to go more in depth of these issues, then I invite you to ask them in a thread devoted to such topics.

You said they were "attacks on the church" and didn't respond further to them aside from that dismissal. I think we've done that discussion before and I think you said that you didn't know that much about it then. I didn't get an answer to my translation question. I see no way that critical thinking can see around the claims and actions of Joseph Smith at all.

Of course I arrived at Mormonism before going on Trek. I'm a convert, and had arrived at it even before I went to my home ward for the first time. I thought you would have known this already, as I have said it before.
Android339

I thought I did, so was puzzled when you said you'd arrived at Mormonism for yourself. I wonder what you mean when you say arrived at it by yourself. I'd say you were guided to the belief by those around you.

Eloquence does not equal truth. People will always be leaving their faiths, and people will always be leaving atheism, but just because there are detractors does not mean that the bitterness they have over it was over a cause that represented how Mormons are supposed to treat others. Again, that Article of Faith expresses how Mormons are supposed to let others be, and if they do not follow it, then they simply aren't abiding by an Article of Faith. It does not, I repeat, mean that there is something inherently wrong with Mormonism itself.
Android339

Are you saying that chap in the video and all those who turn up at the annual ex-Mormon conferences are all liers? That man was an air-crash investigator. Why would such institutions even exist - independently of other faiths and exclusively for ex-Mormons? Are there groups specifically for ex-atheists?

 Your biased search for information is clear here as well, considering you seem to be only looking at anti-Mormon sources, and neither independent nor pro-Mormon sources.
Android339

How do you know what my searches entail? I've gone through much information directly from Mormon sources. Here's what the UK LDS says about Smith - not much! You can see for yourself, via internet searches, how unhappy some people are with the Mormon faith. If a Mormon looses faith, there is no need to persecute them for it, is there? 

I didn't say that you specifically attacked the Church, but that you brought up arguments that have been used to attack the Church. There are many anti-Mormons who get paid by anti-Mormon social groups to defame the Church. This is not a thread about the claims and actions of Joseph Smith, and if you wish to be consistent in your need to stay on topic, then I would ask that you create a new thread. I like to keep these discussions organized.
Android339

This is not defamation. These are honest, open questions that require critical answers, IF you hold Mormon thinking to be critical thinking. They are not insults, but genuine investigation into the claims of your religion's founder. I wonder how people can believe these ideas without external pressure on them, or without some of the techniques I've already discussed being applied.

How anyone can retain those ideas, while calling it "critical thinking", surely can't justify why other critical thinkers outside their church don't accept such ideas as facts. Critical thinking relies on evidence and not feelings. Thinking critically is a method, so you should be able to show me how your critical thinking accepts visionary hats, glasses with seer stones, placing a book into a hat, placing the hat over a face , then translating the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian book of the dead. The translation mentions ancient Americans migrating from Israel, doesn't it?

Why do anti-Mormon groups exist? I think the off-topic precedent has just been set in this union, by an external moderator locking a thread the the request of a TC member. The questions I asked are still all there in the other thread I linked to - still unanswered and still waiting for your response. 

There were none around me who were Mormon. And I mean that literally. I started the search, and ended it, on my own.

Android339

Your parents were not Mormon? You didn't live in a Mormon area or go to  Mormon school? 

I am not calling him a liar. I am saying that he feels the need to justify his decision to others due to bitterness. And there are groups like that for ex-atheists - it's called church, and no matter what church it is there will always be someone who has a story about how he was converted from atheism.

Android339

I feel his bitterness ,since he was threatened with being publicly outed to all the surrounding churches and his confidence broken with his bishop by calling round his brothers. The need for many ex-Mormon organisations does indicate particular issues over this faith, since similar organisations don't seem to exist to the same extent for other faiths.

Some people are unhappy with atheism, and feel they cannot stop being atheists because they cannot be honestly convicted of the truthfulness of any other idea. At least that's how I was. I wouldn't allow myself to just join a religion frivolously to appease an emotional part of my brain. Also, I don't expect the LDS site to defend claims made against Mormonism, because the Church does not actively participate in defending itself. So I would ask you to further that area of your search a bit more. You will not find academic defenses on official Church sites. That's not the job of the Church.

Android339

Are you searching for happiness or for truth? The Mormon church does vigorously defend itself. What is the job of the church? To get me to tithe (pay 15% of any earnings I get)? Why can't the church explain their reason for existence? Why hide it away? Are they embarrassed about their own heritage? Does it sound too far-fetched? It is the job of the church, since most other churches don't seem to mind close inspection of their core doctrines.

They have been answered, but this is not the place to bring them up. My point is, there are many ex-Mormon groups who will bring up arguments that are completely misconstrued and push them towards Mormons and ridicule them as being brainwashed and anti-intellectual despite the fact that such claims have already been answered. There is as much anti-Mormon pressure as there is pro-Mormon pressure.

Android339

The seer stone, book in hat, reformed Egyptian questions have not been answered here. They have not even been attempted by you. This is exactly the place to bring them up, since I believe that critical thinking is the opposite of brainwashing. These questions are not aimed at ridicule. They are quite justifiably asked and should be faced and responded to. They are the basis of your belief. These issues are at the core of Mormonism. The questions should be respected, considered and well researched. Answers should be reached using critical thinking and skeptical, rational judgement. Conclusions need not be jumped to either.

Let's not talk about "pro" or "anti"-Mormonism, but try and be Mormon neutral, so we can reach unbiased judgements about their claims and take them at face value. 

I would like to go into these things from my point of view, but this is not the place to discuss these things. All I ask is that if you want to talk about these things, then do so in a more appropriate thread. I am not comfortable with bringing this up in an inappropriate thread.

Android339

I don't think it matters really. You are the TC. I think this has much to do with this thread and brainwashing. I don't really want to start another thread that will almost certainly be an exclusive debate between us two, when there's already at least three threads running concurrently that  we've invaded. So I'll wait, or justify any further comments I make with regard to brainwashing by framing them with the ideas of Smith. 

Anti-Mormon groups exist because there are those who are convinced that Mormonism is evil. I believe they are incorrect. Again, however, I do not wish to talk about this in this thread. I do not wish to resurrect a dead thread, either, a thread in which I did respond to what you asked, but if you would like to bring up the claims and actions of Joseph Smith, I do invite you to create another thread on the matter. That is all I ask.

Android339

I checked back through the thread before linking to it and you didn't answer my questions about translation. I think your evasion, refusal to re-open the thread you created on Mormonism (so as to keep things in the one place), discuss it further here (when it has everything to do with brainwashing) are stalling tactics. I don't mind waiting, or using it to justify my own claims of brainwashing in context here.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Your parents were not Mormon? You didn't live in a Mormon area or go to  Mormon school? 

Android339

No, they were not. I lived in Indiana, and went to a public school.

But you became a Mormon at 16? Why not explain more about your environment and how you came to Mormonism? I don't understand your reticence in relating your personal journey towards Mormonism.

Such actions do not represent a problem with Mormonism itself, but with the Mormons who persecuted him in such a way. Again, there is nothing in our faith that says we must persecute others because of their faith. In fact, the Article of Faith I quoted mentions the complete opposite. Those who persecute non-members are not abiding by an Article of Faith.Android339

So why do these people so often act out of the character of their faith? Isn't Mormonism responsible for its' members? 

I am searching for truth. And no, the Mormon Church does not vigorously defend itself. The Mormon Church does not engage itself in apologetics in any way. It does explain the reason for its existence. Even you linked me a page that was talking about the Restoration. The Church talks of its origin, and heritage, but it does not academically engage in intellectual defense against its critcs. It is not the job of the Church to defend itself against critics.

-----------

I do not believe that the claims of Joseph Smith and his actions are related to this topic, and therefore I will not continue any more discussion on the matter on this thread. It is my right on this forum to interpret what is off topic on my own thread, and this is apparent to me as being off topic.

I will invite you once again, and I would happily oblige you, to create a thread that deals with the topics that you wish to talk about, and if you do not do so, it is not because I have stopped you, or because I am afraid, but because you have chosen not to do so and insist on bringing the argument where I am most uncomfortable in talking about it - an inappropriate thread.

This is a form of evasiveness in itself, as you will not allow us to meet on common ground. All I ask, if you truly want to bring this up, is that you create a separate thread on the matter, and if you are unwilling to, then if you continue on this thread to write of things that you know I am not willing to talk about on this thread because of how I feel it to be off topic, then I will create a new thread, but I am not ignoring you out of evasiveness, but ignoring you out of the fact that I consider this to be off topic, the topic being brainwashing. 

Android339

I'm saying that to believe a man translated the book of Abraham in a hat, while wearing glasses with "seer stones" from "reformed Egyptian", then to believe what he said he'd translated, you must be brainwashed. 

We already have four threads now that have exclusive chat between us. I don't want to overwhelm the union. I also do understand your reservation in answering these questions about the basis of your faith. I won't start a new thread just yet and maintain the right to refer to these claims of Smith in evidencing my brainwashing argument.