From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Still no Retraction [was Re: _The Gainsayers_ by Darrick Evenson
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:38:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov2.141230.5416@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes...

>It was mentioned by Jason Hunsaker that I had referred to Darrick Evenson and
>that several other Mormons had corrected me by email, pointing out that Evenson
>was a fraud and that afterwards I never pushed, promoted, or even made
>reference to _The Gainsayers_. 

[...]

>Robert Weiss took me to task for not posting an immediate retraction. I agree
>that I was at fault for that. 


	I didn't say anything about an immediate retraction. My sole 
contribution was a terse, "Nor retract," to Jason's letter that 
Willard did not promote Evenson after being told that he was a fraud.

	And instead of retracting, Willard seeks to justify his 
posting concerning the _Gainsayers_, with an intro and a section 
that was edited from the previous material:

>But I do ask Mr Weiss to consider exactly what
>I wrote at that time.
> 
>As he should recall I stated that Darrick Evenson had made two very serious
>charges against Ex-Mormons for Jesus. First, he charged that *most* ex-Mormons
>exaggerated their former standing in the Church to build up one's authoritative
>status. Second, he charged that there were incidents were anti-Mormons would
>join the church and then leave it shortly thereafter in order to gain the
>status of being an "ex-Mormon" (see article posted Sept 17, 1992)
> 
>I then immediately stated the following:
> 
>>Evenson's charges might be simply dismissed if it were not for the fact
>>that supporting evidence seems to be coming from other Mormon Apologistic
>>literature. Although I do not especially care for the way that Robert and
>>Rosemary Brown have chosen to present the results of their investigations,
>>it is hard to ignore the hard data that they have dug up on several
>>important ex-Mormons who have actively participated in Anti-Mormon
>>ministries. They have *documented* how Dee Jay Nelson, Wayne Cowdrey, and
>>Ed Decker have all distorted their former standing in the church and their
>>relationship to key individuals in the church. In some cases, these
>>persons have simply lied.
> 
>In short Robert, Evenson may be a fraud, but these specific accusations, which
>I repeated, have documented support from other sources. You will usually find
>that I will attempt to draw on more than ONE SOURCE before I make a posting to
>the net.

	In Willard's intro to the old material, he mentions that the 
charges were that: 1) *most* ex-Mormons exaggerate their former 
standing, and  2) that a few anti-Mormons joined the church just to quit, 
so they can claim to be `ex-Mormons.'

	The first charge is an example of the fallacy of hasty 
generalization. Neither Willard nor Evenson can rightfully claim 
that *most* ex-Mormons exaggerate their former standing. They would 
have to know who are all the ex-Mormons, what their former standings 
were, and what they now claim them to be, and then see a majority on 
the side that exaggerate. What has been shown is simply that a few of 
the prominent ex-Mormons that the Browns and Evenson decided to 
mention (they didn't mention those whom did not exaggerate) 
exaggerated their former standings or relationships. A *few* does not 
translate into *most*. To presume *most* on the basis of a *few* is 
fallacious.

	The second charge is really moot. If a few people join the LDS 
to then quit, so that they can say that they are ex-LDS, so what? Is 
there an implication that these people are not real ex-LDS?


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu