Episode 100: The Live Anniversary Show

40 comments on “Episode 100: The Live Anniversary Show”

  1. Gail F. Bartholomew Reply

    Once again great pod cast.

    I would like to comment on your whole discussion with Mike about believing the church is true.

    I for one take great issue with that language. I know it is our culture, Mormon culture to talk about if we believe the church is true or not. But how does “I know the Church is true” or “I know the Book of Mormon is true” or “the Bible is true” tell us anything about the person who says them or their belief? Give me two Mormons that get up in Fast meeting and say “I know the Church is true” that believe the exact same thing about the church? How many evangelicals believe everything in the Bible means the exact same thing?

    I do not believe Mike believes the same things about the church as my bishop. I believe my stake president would likely take exception to some of what Mike would say is true about the Church. I also do not believe that any of the the panelists on Mormon expression disbelieve everything about the Church. I do not think any of you could say there is nothing good, useful, or true about the Church. Likely those things you believe are good, useful, or true about the church are different for each of you. I do not believe this type of language encourages anything but superficial or no examination of ones own belief.

    I really do not believe this language serves the Church other than keeping members believing that they need to be exactly the same as all other members or that everyone else is the same I need to be just like them.

    But I certainly do not believe it serves we the Mormon Expression community. John I thought you were making the point that there is as many prospectives on Mormonism as there are Mormons. May we resolve to quite trying to put people into the believers and none believer camps. I would hope we do not look at Mike as “the Believer” on Mormon Expression, but of one of the many interesting perspectives on Mormon Expression.

    Thank you.

    • Fanson Reply

      All excellent points Gail!
      Thank you.

      Personally, I think that Mike is plant for the American Dental Association who’s reaping the reward for all the teeth grinding that his dogmatic, condescending comments create among across all demographics.

      😉

      • Randy Snyder Reply

        As a member of the ADA, I can say that there is absolutely no truth to these wild allegations made by Fanson. Your conspiracy mongering is, quite frankly, appalling and if you keep it up, you will hear from the ADA lawyers.

        My suspicion is that Mike is actually a plant from one of the other “worlds without number” our God has created, sent to bring the one true interpretation of the one true Cosmic Mormonism in this Universe. Just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Mike was sent to start a grass roots movement to restore a lot of the plain and precious truths lost since the early days of the restoration in order to prevent another great apostasy. Mike is only teaching “what has been taught on other worlds…”

        • Fanson Reply

          In the interests of not getting my sorry arse sued by a bunch of angry dentists I humbled (but begrudgingly) withdraw my conspiracy theory.

          And I wholeheartedly support Mr. Snyder’s fine, fine, fine theory. In fact it jives well with my theory that Joseph Smith, Jr. was in reality an Kolobian alien with implanted engrams sent by Xenu to prepare his children for the mother ship – which will be landing at Center Place (aka “Independence, Missouri”) once we have achieved a point of worthiness in Xenu’s eyes.

          They’re out there and, darn it, they want their pyramids back!

          Thank you Mr. Snyder for mending me of my wrong-headed error!
          (and please call off your ADA lawyers – OK?)

    • Dan M. Reply

      Great comment. There are as many perspectives on Mormonism as there are Mormons. Debunk homogeneity.

  2. Jay Bryner Reply

    Comment on the differing celestial kingdom. Football versus Soccer. The celestial beings will live among the terrestrial, and telestial beings. But the celestial beings will live in large houses on the east bench, and the telestial beings will live in trailer parks. There will be other differences too. Telestial people have to eat hot dogs, potato chips and shasta. Terrestrial people get to eat steak and fancy salads. Celestial people get to eat food that is more delicious and invigorating than anybody can imagine.

    Oh, and Zilpha does have a sweet voice.

      • Jay Bryner Reply

        Chuck-o-rama is one of the many property holdings of the corporation of celestial beings. Celestialreserve Inc. The idea is for Terrestrial and Telestial beings to fund operations for the celestial beings. If you’re celestial, you get a discount on the lunch buffet, and a caffine-free diet coke on the house.

  3. Wes Cauthers Reply

    Okay, so now I have to know what the whole “nuther” thing is about. It came up on the 14 fundamentals episode I was on, but I didn’t get it.

    • Glenn Reply

      Listen to Episode 77: Mormon Expressions — it all started there. Now John just wants to show that he can exceed the quota of whole nuthers anytime he wants.

  4. flackerman Reply

    Congradulations on the great success you are having. Looking forward to 100 more.

  5. OuterBrightness Reply

    Congratulations on keeping the podcast going longer than 3 months! The discussions are always very insightful and thought-provoking. For what it’s worth, my favorite podcasts have been the following:

    – Seth and Lorin talking about science and disbelief
    – The discussion on the 14 points of a prophet
    – The discussion on Section 132
    – The interview with Bob McCue
    – The King Follet Discourse discussion
    – Interview with Mr. Deity
    – Many of the general conference reviews. Like someone said, it allows me to talk about conference with my family without actually having to suffer through it all. And I like the negative slant on it. There are already magazines, newspapers, and websites dedicated to giving flowery, good reviews on conference. It’s priceless to have real criticism. I find myself laughing out loud while listening to your reviews because you’re saying things that I have thought countless times but could never say aloud to anyone around me. Please keep it up and keep it negative (as long as it’s honest)!!

  6. OuterBrightness Reply

    Congratulations on keeping the podcast going longer than 3 months! The discussions are always very insightful and thought-provoking. For what it’s worth, my favorite podcasts have been the following:

    – Seth and Lorin talking about science and disbelief
    – The discussion on the 14 points of a prophet
    – The discussion on Section 132
    – The interview with Bob McCue
    – The King Follet Discourse discussion
    – Interview with Mr. Deity
    – Many of the general conference reviews. Like someone said, it allows me to talk about conference with my family without actually having to suffer through it all. And I like the negative slant on it. There are already magazines, newspapers, and websites dedicated to giving flowery, good reviews on conference. It’s priceless to have real criticism. I find myself laughing out loud while listening to your reviews because you’re saying things that I have thought countless times but could never say aloud to anyone around me. Please keep it up and keep it negative (as long as it’s honest)!!

  7. OuterBrightness Reply

    Congratulations on keeping the podcast going longer than 3 months! The discussions are always very insightful and thought-provoking. For what it’s worth, my favorite podcasts have been the following:

    – Seth and Lorin talking about science and disbelief
    – The discussion on the 14 points of a prophet
    – The discussion on Section 132
    – The interview with Bob McCue
    – The King Follet Discourse discussion
    – Interview with Mr. Deity
    – Many of the general conference reviews. Like someone said, it allows me to talk about conference with my family without actually having to suffer through it all. And I like the negative slant on it. There are already magazines, newspapers, and websites dedicated to giving flowery, good reviews on conference. It’s priceless to have real criticism. I find myself laughing out loud while listening to your reviews because you’re saying things that I have thought countless times but could never say aloud to anyone around me. Please keep it up and keep it negative (as long as it’s honest)!!

  8. OuterBrightness Reply

    Congratulations on keeping the podcast going longer than 3 months! The discussions are always very insightful and thought-provoking. For what it’s worth, my favorite podcasts have been the following:

    – Seth and Lorin talking about science and disbelief
    – The discussion on the 14 points of a prophet
    – The discussion on Section 132
    – The interview with Bob McCue
    – The King Follet Discourse discussion
    – Interview with Mr. Deity
    – Many of the general conference reviews. Like someone said, it allows me to talk about conference with my family without actually having to suffer through it all. And I like the negative slant on it. There are already magazines, newspapers, and websites dedicated to giving flowery, good reviews on conference. It’s priceless to have real criticism. I find myself laughing out loud while listening to your reviews because you’re saying things that I have thought countless times but could never say aloud to anyone around me. Please keep it up and keep it negative (as long as it’s honest)!!

  9. Kaylanamars Reply

    Great podcast! My faves are the 14 fundamentals, King Follett, Will Bagley and the conference ones. Those are my top ones, anyway. But all are good. Thanks for the hard work and time put into these. Also hoping for 100 more.

  10. Swearingelder Reply

    Congratulations on your 100th episode! I’ve listened to every single one of the 100 (+28 or so you say is the true number).

    Maybe I’ll take a break for the next 100… 😉

  11. Jesse A. Smith Reply

    Loved this episode, even though it was all over the map. I was glad the the upcoming Abrahamic Covenant episode received some publicity (like John’s ringing endorsement, ha ha).

    Question for Tom – how many weeks are in a year?

    Thanks for all the good times, here is to whole nuther hundred.

  12. Chris Reply

    Happy 100! I think I’ve heard every single one of them and I have turned several people on to the podcast. I would have to say that my favorite episodes have been the “for dummies”-type episodes. They have been useful to me to save breath with people who know very little about tricky subjects like Section 132, Mountain Meadows, Book of Abraham, etc. I have frequently directed people to those discussion and said we can talk about the issues as soon as they get through them when I am challenged for my issues with the church. I never had such an easy tool to get people up to speed with all of the skeletons that I find to be damning in such a quick and entertaining way. Thanks for all the work yout put into this.

  13. Craig Paxton Reply

    Wow a 100 podcasts, and I’ve listened to every last one of them…what does that say about me?

    Any way may I offer a suggestion for a future podcast? My personal loss of belief in the church was a very slow, gradual process spread over several months of intense study. Much like the preverbal piece of straw on the camel’s back…each new discovery or revelation concerning the unvarnished stories at the foundations of Mormonism grew and grew until I could no longer sustain belief…and my testimony collapsed under the weight of reality. During this process of ‘enlightenment’…I would literally feel my worldview shifting under my feet as I would move from one understanding to a completely different understanding of church history, doctrine or scriptural interpretation. As I literally moved from one understanding to another I would often look back at what I had previously believed to be true and say to myself…Wow I must have been the most naïve person in the world or the most uninformed member of the church to have held that belief or to have not known some hidden factoid. But I still believe that I was very very typical. For example as a member of the church I accepted the traditional views on such things as a universal flood or the hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon or that Joseph Smith only had 3 wives. Ok, Ok I WAS naïve.

    So here is my suggested podcast topic. I would love to hear your podcast group discuss your ‘Before’ and ‘After’ beliefs on a list of Mormon subjects such as
    How did you believe the Book of Mormon was translated…before your enlightenment
    Did you believe in a literal Garden of Eden in Missouri?
    Universal Flood
    Who the Lamanites were/are
    Evolution
    Atonement
    Book of Mormon view
    Etc,etc…
    You can be creative and make an entire list of before and after subject matters

    The value of this is twofold.

    #1. Oft times when someone (me) leaves the church they have the feeling that they are completely crazy shifting their beliefs…It would be valuable for your listeners to know that they were not crazy in reaching their new enlightenment.
    #2. When I have had conversations with church apologist they blame me for the naïve/trusting worldview I held as a member of the church. I always counter with the comment that I received my worldview from church teachings, books, seminary etc. It would be good to know that I wasn’t the only one who held these naive views (if I was just let me know …all slink back into my cave)

    • Glenn Reply

      Great points Craig. I’m not sure that we’ll ever do an entire podcast on it — I don’t know, I could be wrong, I’d be all for it. But keep you’re eyes peeled for the next time we do a live feedback show — they will start happeneing more frequently, I expect, and it would be great to get a question like this on a skype call where we (or whoever) could discuss it with you in person.

      But for me, yeah — I had all the same litereal beliefs — and if you heard the recent Christmas podcast you heard me talk about how I was so perplexed that other non-Mormon kids didn’t know that we were the angels who appeared to the shepherds when Christ was born. They didn’t even know they lived before they were born! What a shame. But what a blessing for us, right?

      And every once in a while I’ll slip back into that worldview and just marvel at it — like the other night when my wife and I were walking into the movies, talking about the devil, and how devlishly devilish he has been, preparing throughout history all the third of the hosts of heaven who rebelled with him for time when the mormons would come near the end of the world to bring the truth to the world — but they can’t have that so they have to stomp it out — but no matter what they do, they can’t beat the mormons — no matter how hard they try — even though they are smart, and devilishly cunning, and they know our weaknesses, and they set traps for us everywhere we go and stir up the hearts of unrighteous men all around us and turn the whole world against us, and they knew us from the beginning and didn’t pass through the veil and maybe even can read our thoughts sometimes if we let them, but we have Christ on our side if we let Him so ultimately we will win — but man — it is US against the world and then some.

      Yeah.

      I remember really believing that once. You are not alone, and you are not crazy.

      (but you were)

      😉

      • Craig Paxton Reply

        Yes…I heard you say you bleived that you were one of the angels who sang when Christ was born…boy and I thought I was crazy… 🙂

      • Hermes Reply

        Add me to the list of former crazies: I was not sure how everything went down (in the story of the universe since God said, “Let there be light”), but I was definitely willing (for several years even) to read fables as though they were sober historical memoirs. (I recall reading Archbishop James Ussher in my teens and wondering how accurate his date for the creation of the world was: it never crossed my mind that he was not even wrong!) Church definitely encouraged this kind of thinking. (Paradoxically, it also undercut it with instructions to study good books and be open to new information: I took these latter principles seriously enough that I eventually learned how mistaken I was about the nature of prophets and holy writ.)

        Like Glenn, I revisit my old thought-universe every now and then and wonder, “What the heck was I smoking?”

  14. Craig Paxton Reply

    More thoughts. Before and after

    Views on

    The expositor
    Joseph smith
    Brigham young
    Dinosaurs
    Adam and Eve
    Tower of babel

    Ok enough u get the idea

  15. Loren Reply

    Congrats guys! My favourite podcast show ever and I listen to a lot of different podcasts.

    P.S. sometimes I feel so sorry for Mike. When you guys are asking him “How can believe x” it’s like you’re really saying “what’s wrong with you?” Go Mike! Even though I disagree with almost everything you say.

  16. Tol Reply

    this episode came right after a sort of resting period I took to contemplate what I had learned. After taking a break I listened to this episode and it encouraged me to go back and listen to episodes I had passed over for whatever reason. I’m very thankful for your efforts!

  17. Anonymous Reply

    Thanks for all of the great comments on the episode. I was a little taken aback when John started the show with a kind of interview with me, it took me by suprise.

    I have a continuous dialogue in my head trying to understand why those who struggle with their faith have allof their issues. I think whatever causes a loss of faith is the same mentality that causes people to be a liberal. Its an alien mentality and an entirely different worldview.

    When I say that the church is true I dont think that this is something to be interpreted in an abstract way. Joseph really met and spoke with God and his angels. There were literal Gold plates and a literal interpretation took place. These are not abstract thoughts. This is very black and white. When we are sealed in marriage in the temple this is not a figurative thing, it is literal, and the church itself is literaly ture.

    • Jason Reply

      But I think Gail’s comment still applies here, Mike. You say that this is a “black and white” issue. But it really isn’t. I assume that you believe the Nephites and Lamanites were a literal Hebrew civilization that, like Joseph Smith taught, spanned the North American continent. I also assume that you believe that a literal battle occurred on Hill Cumorah, near Joseph’s home, involving hundreds of thousands of people, just as the Church claims and prophets have taught. Well, if you believe that, you’re already way out of line with what the apologists argue. Apologists consider themselves true believes, just like you. Yet, they now argue the limited geography theory the two Hill Cumorah’s theory, etc. If the apologists don’t see Joseph Smith’s words as literal (i.e. that Joseph said the Lamanites spanned the whole continent) why do you disagree so strongly with the apologists? Why are they more nuanced than you? Are the apologists going apostate because they are not at your level of belief?

    • Anonymous Reply

      The only way to say the church is true, and still have the knowledge most of us have about the world, is to mean that in an abstract, non-literal way. Some things are just not black and white.

      Some examples:
      1) Adam and Eve from the Bible (who lived 6,000 years ago according to Genesis) were not the first living humans on the Earth.
      2) No man living 4,000 years ago (Noah) could have built an ark to fit every single species of animal living at that time.
      3) The Earth has not been entirely flooded by water in the last several hundred thousand (even million) years.
      4) All the languages in the world do not stem from one single language, and then branch off 5,500 (and then again, from Noah 4,000) years ago to the languages we have today. Nearly all the major world languages and cultures date back much, much farther.
      5) Jesus could not have been born according to the narratives in the Gospels – which even contradict each other.
      6) Joseph’s manner in “translating” the Book of Mormon and the stories of the witnesses.
      7) The Lamanite / Hill Cumorah issue mentioned by Jason below.
      8) The Book of Abraham.
      9) The Fanny Alger issue and then Polygamy.
      10) Succession (Read Mormon Enigma and it’s clear Joseph meant for his own son Joseph III to be the church’s leader after him).
      11) Article of Faith 10 – what happened to the “restoration of the Ten Tribes” or building Zion on the American continent or the “literal gathering of Israel”?
      12) King Follet discourse (children gods upon thrones?)
      etc, etc, etc.

      You like to brush off or ignore anything and everything that doesn’t fit in with your world view, but some things just can’t be ignored if you are serious about taking this stuff literally.

      If the church is literally true, there must be a plausible explanation for all of the above points, and the many other points not even mentioned here (lying for the Lord, changing scripture and prophesy to match up with events, etc.).

      If the Bible stories can’t be taken as literally true, what exactly are we supposed to believe?

  18. Carl S. Reply

    I have listened to all 100 episodes and have been here since the beginning. I really love John and Zilpha. I wish Nyal was on more often. Glenn seems pretty cool most of the time. Tom is a stretch for me to listen to and Mike is unbearable. I no longer have any belief in mormonism. I no longer have any belief in jesus as a godlike figure. I consider myself an atheist as to all established gods and agnostic to any future god(s). I can no longer stomach the likes of Mike and other TBMs. I will only listen to future episodes that include at least John, Zilpha and/or Nyal as part of the group. I am not a big fan of the live episodes that do not have a specific topic to discuss.

    • Anonymous Reply

      Even though I “Like” your comment, I also really like Mike. He really spices up the podcast! I hope he sticks around for another 100 episodes! 🙂
      However, it would be nice to get one more TBM on who is slightly more… normal? Consiglierge or what ever his name is that did the podcast on Book Of Mormon Bingos would be perfect – or somebody with his personality. He is just great and not the least offensive.

      • Tom Reply

        @ Carl S., You are certainly not my favorite listener. So I guess that makes us about square? By the way, why do you hate things that don’t fit in with your way of thinking?

        @ Night, What do you consider “normal”, when referring to TBM’s?

        • Anonymous Reply

          Normal would be somebody more like you Tom, but 100% believing. Maybe more like your EQ pres or Bishop or Stake Pres. Somebody with a great personality, like Glenn, but who believes in the church with all their heart. I guess I mean somebody who can represent your average church-goer, but then (most of) those people know almost nothing about the real history or any of the issues (historical or doctrinal) or problems of the church.
          I wish there was somebody like my wife or brother-in-law on the show but I am pretty sure they would only last one episode because they’d get offended by the stuff that comes up.

          • Tom

            Fair enough. But for me, I’m tired of trying to get a 100% believer on the show. I know that John has tried many times as have I.

            My opinion is that we should make a strong effort of presenting the believer side of the argument in our panel discussions rather than feel like the discussion is lacking because we can’t get a “believer” on with us.

          • Anonymous

            Hey, I agree with you. I guess that’s what I meant by my last sentence. I think you guys do an exceptional job representing the believer’s views so just keep that up.

  19. Priss Reply

    As an atheist who has never been Mormon but who had a strange, perhaps morbid, curiosity about the religion, I have to say I love Mormon Expression. I too have listened to all of the podcasts and have enjoyed most of them greatly. I think Glenn is a terrific and funny addition to the show. I liked when Mike was absent, since he appalls me. John and Zilpha are always great, and I love it when John goes on a tear. Because of Mormon Expression I have a much better understanding of the good that is found in Mormon culture, and enough knowledge of the history and current practice of the church to stay far away!

  20. Royek Reply

    The following ruminations respond to the panelists’ comments concerning personally harmful behaviors that religions may foster. My thesis is that religions evolve thought systems that cause its members to conflate individual salvation with the perpetuation of the institution. The thought systems allow individuals to perceive self-agency in their behavior even though the collective effect is a “superorganism” that ultimately regards individuals in utilitarian terms. The LDS Church provides a striking case study of this model. Those interested in the research supporting some of these ideas will find references at the end. I invite criticism.

    • Millions of years of hominid evolution shaped the positive moral emotions that motivate kin-altruism.

    • A (few) hundred thousand of years of Homo sapien evolution extended positive moral emotions to non-kin relationships in small hunter-gather groups. These support an attenuated reciprocal altruism.

    • The last several thousand years of human cultural evolution extended altruism to larger groups, including religious institutions. They accomplish this through symbolic representations (myths, cosmologies, etc) that appropriate innate moral emotions (as well as existential psychological needs).

    • Altruistic behavior is largely confined to one’s in-group. This limited “reach” constitutes a moral circle. When under stress, a group anxiously patrols the interior and boundaries of its moral circle. Cheaters and defectors must be detected and punished – outsiders assimilated, repelled, or destroyed. This behavior is motivated by negative moral emotions. Positive (embracing) and negative (repelling) moral emotions are complementary – two sides of the same evolution coin.

    • Group-sustaining behavior emerges mostly from unconscious emotion-driven cognition in response to complex interactions and constrained by the group’s thought system. At the “ground level” individuals perceive themselves as free agents governed by deliberate autonomous conscious reasoning. But this is a misperception – the product of the relatively impoverished capacity of conscious cognition relative to unconscious cognition. The latter hums along with supercomputer power feeding the consciousness incomplete and inaccurate reasons on a “need-to-know” basis.

    • From this “30,000-foot” perspective we see a superorganism plodding along through an evolving cultural landscape, tossing off cancerous in-group “cells” and repelling out-group “germs.” Individuals ultimately have only utilitarian value with respect to the institution. Self-perpetuation is the “prime directive” – individual happiness and salvation is only ostensible goals.

    • Viewing LDS doctrine and practices from this perspective can be striking. Take your pick – correlation, adolescent missionaries, emotion-based epistemology, pre-mortal promises, implication in secret ordinances, endlessly repeating said ordinances for the dead, quorums (diluted individual responsibility), etc. – all take on this amoral superorganismic quality.

    • The “families are forever” doctrine is a prime example. Turning the nuclear family into the basic “cell” the LDS Church appropriates the deepest human moral emotions and attachment in service to its own survival. A family is a more robust cell than an individual. The repressed anxiety produced by the implicit understanding that “broken families” are also forever points to the institutional priority.

    Am I over-reaching? Can the institutional-level and individual-level interpretations of Mormon doctrine and practice be harmonized? Would predictions based on this “superorganism” thesis make it more compelling? Is it a falsifiable model? Does the system of thought revealed in General Conference, scripture, teaching manuals, sacrament meeting talks and apologetics fit this model?

    References:

    1. In the Name of God: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Ethics and Violence by John Teehan
    2. Minds and God: The Cognitive Foundation of Religion by Todd Tremlin
    3. Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious by Timothy D. Wilson
    4. In Gods We Trust – Scott Atran
    5. Darwin’s Cathedral – D. Sloan Wilson
    6. Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion – Lee Kirkpatrick

  21. Fanson Reply

    I have a small request for the next 100-episodes.

    Could you please standardize the data entry for the audio tags on your .MP3 files?

    For example, please decide if the “Album Artist”, and “Album Title”
    Mormon Expression or MormonExpression.com?

    And please decide if the “Song Title” is
    “Episode 100” or “Episode 100: The Anniversary Episode” or “Mormon Expressions Episode 100” or . . .

    Well you get the idea.

    For those of us listening with MP3 players in the car with multiple episodes loaded at a time these are small but important matters.

    Big thanks y’all and please keep up the great work!

  22. Fanson Reply

    And one last comment on the topic that opened this podcast. I really don’t think that there’s any great mystery here when you consider the opening lines of Chapter 6 of the watershed book “SNAPPING:
    America’s Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change” by
    Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman (see http://www.amazon.com/Snapping-Americas-Epidemic-Sudden-Personality/dp/0964765004/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295856778&sr=1-1 )

    “IN ALL THE WORLD, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy.

    We talked with dozens of individuals in this state of mind: cult members, group therapy graduates, born-again Christians, some Transcendental Meditators. After a while, it seemed very much like dancing to a broken record. We would ask a question, and the individual would spin round and round in a circle of dogma. If we tried to interrupt, he or she would simply pick right up again or go back to the beginning and start over.

    Soon we began to realize that what we were watching went much deeper. These people were not simply incapable of carrying on a genuine conversation, they were completely mired in their unthinking, unfeeling, uncomprehending states. Whether cloistered in cults or passing blindly through the world, they were impervious to the pain of parents, spouses, friends and lovers. How do you reach such people? Can they be made to think and feel again? Is there any way to reunite them with their former personalities and the world around them?”

    [A full excerpt of this chapter can be read here:
    http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html ]

    Labeling this type of thinking and behavior as a “Snapped Psychological State” seems, to me, to be a perfectly plausible and appropriate explanation.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *