John Gee claims in his new book intro that there's no need for his new book

[_Kishkumen]

The thrust of his attack on the Jana Riess model (which I also think is deficient but for different reasons) is a waste of time, then, if understanding is his goal—but of course that is not his goal. Who is the audience of this book and what is its intended function? It seems to exist to provide what Gee imagines will be comfort for committed believers with uncommitted or leaving family members and friends. "Your friends and family who leave are losers who didn't do their homework—maybe you didn't do enough to get them to do it—because the Church is even more perfect than the Gospel is" seems like a great angle, and there must be a market for it. Wish I'd thought of it.

Anyway, of course this is also a bunch of barely disguised circular logic from Gee. "Mormons I approve of are good because they do what I want them to, and because they do what I want them to, they are good, and therefore I approve of them. Our job is to get people to become good by doing what I want them to in order to win my approval. Jana Riess is the devil. And so is Brian Hauglid. I have a Ph.D.. Buy my book."

I don't think I disagree with any of this. From what little I know about both books, I am unlikely to be all that interested in either. I more interested in the meta-discussion about interactions between Mormons of all kinds and former Mormons of all kinds. Most testimony-driven pseudo-arguments are circular, at least the ones that I have recently wasted any of my time on, such as Brian Hales' article about naturalistic theories of Book of Mormon translation, which literally concludes with his testimony.

I suppose when I see these arguments between believers and non-believers, however, and how they tend to play out, I tend to look for the claims that seem at least generally credible or at least reasonable on any side. Or, in other words, I am trying to understand how things look from that party's perspective. Yes, of course, these books are written primarily to validate a particular perspective. For those who don't share that perspective, they easily provoke criticism. I don't see anything fundamentally different about this version of Gee than his other stuff. He has the same apologetic biases he has always had.

And, honestly, while I don't share Gee's perspective, I think that to those who are spiritually committed to Mormonism as it is taught to them in the LDS Church it is perfectly reasonable, from their point of view, to conclude that a number of leave-takers don't get it. Indeed, I would say that their reasoning on this is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of LDS Mormonism. For them there is something to know, according to their spiritual epistemology that depends on spiritual feelings, and knowing that thing leads to the conviction that helps one make covenants, obey leaders, and endure to the end. Those who claim to know at one time but lose the plot somehow will become suspect regarding their knowledge, faithfulness, etc.

Many others are reevaluating the validity of these views because, hey, they don't seem to be working out so well for an increasing number of people, and they will be willing to look to a person like Jana Riess for a different understanding of what is happening, but the Mopologists have consistently circled back to those explanations that maintain the status quo as much as possible. Should we be surprised that Gee has done so here as he has consistently done elsewhere? Gee may be living in a museum worshiping relics of faith, but it is worth noting that what he is doing is in line with what they have done, and generally found reasonable success in, for a very long time.

We can complain about what he has done, but I don't know that what he has done does not apply equally well to most of LDSism at this point. They have been doing this, they will continue to do this, and from the outside it sure looks hella redundant and a waste of time.

[_Gadianton]

You guys are killing me. I'm trying to get through the first episode of "Freud" on Netflix on this warm Sabbath Day, but ya'll are far more entertaining.

I agree that apostates set themselves up as having all the credentials and I have done this myself. I think that TBMs often do believe the credentials, but they have an out, because an established Chapel Mormon teaching is that "even the elect" can be deceived. Thus, like David, perhaps a grievous sin is the only explanation for an RM, BYU grad, Eagle Scout. With the apologists it's a little different. For them, it's a pissing contest: "how dare Dr. Shades, who isn't even a real doctor, question this book of scripture that I believe, and I have a degree in an ancient language?"

I think Chapel Mormons often do say that so-and-so "knew too much". My bishop very carefully advised me during my mission interview to put down the church books, the FARMS stuff etc. It's rather, an Internet Mormon explanation that apostates never understood the gospel; haven't read enough books by Hugh Nibley and FARMS, and they aren't just trying to get back at the apostates they don't like, but sell themselves to the chapel. They set themselves up as a "light unto the world". "Look to us or perish".

I think in a sense, Mormons are right that sin accounts for something. As Symm notes, "Sunday shopping". Keeping the commandments is a form of brain washing. Dr. Moore pointed out what happens to people when the regular currents change. It's not that many of the sins are really sins or even decidedly negative, but that they keep a person in a certain mental zone. Same with anything else.

[_Lemmie]

Thank you for the clarification. I would never have concluded that “fair” in this case meant “partisan.”

As I said, when we accept that Gee is partisan and that like most people in his situation he is not going to be "statistically responsible," we can at least be happy for those times when he says something factual, which is about as fair as the situation is going to get.

I disagree, emphatically. First of all, he is not saying something factual. And second, just because it is “as fair as the situation is going to get” doesn’t mean it is fair at all, nor is it something one has to accept. I don’t need to “at least be happy” when illogical nonsense is spouted, simply because it’s not likely less illogical nonsense might be forthcoming. Nonsense is nonsense.

I think it is interesting that you expect a religionist of any stripe will likely feel bound to be statistically responsible, but I start with the assumption that Gee will not be, nor do I really expect, as a matter of practicality, that almost any religionist will be so dispassionate and objective about their position.

You misunderstand my position then. I do not expect a religionist to be statistically responsible, I am simply pointing out that they are not. I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take. I am surprised that a fellow academic would argue that point. It seems so patently illogical.

[_RockSlider]

I'm sure glad I did not learn any more about the Church than I did. How's that old saying go? "Ignorance is Bliss!"

When you learn things like BY's Steam Engine, it's just plain destructive to your soul that you supported it.

It would be interesting to learn what happened to Kish?

[_Temp. Admin.]

(Dr. Shades here, posting under our "Temp. Admin." account.)

When you learn things like BY's Steam Engine, it's just plain destructive to your soul that you supported it.

This is new to me; tell me more about Brigham Young's steam engine.

It would be interesting to learn what happened to Kish?

He posted just today, so I don't think anything happened to him.

[_moksha]

In which case, why the need for a book on saving faith if there isn’t a problem with numbers of youth losing faith?

Sometimes academic people write books just so they can point to having published something. Sometimes people write books to make money. Not sure if anyone publishes books just so there can be something in the discount bins.

It would be interesting to learn what happened to Kish?

Hopefully, his potatoes are still firmly planted.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to learn what happened to Kish?

Hopefully, his potatoes are still firmly planted.

That joke is getting old.

[Guest]

Dr Shades see Will Bagley's The Truth About The Trek for the story about BY's tobacco, alcohol and steam engine. He was an evil SOB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou47dupzoys

It was reading Kish's posts in this thread that has me inquiring about him.

[_I have a question]

"How Many in a Drove?
The problem of overoptimism also works the other way, as some are overoptimistic about the Church losing members. Returning to our original question, are youth leaving the Church in droves? Well, that depends. How many youth are in a drove? The English term drove referred to animals driven or the path along which they were driven and was metaphorically transferred to any crowd or multitude, especially when moving as a body.44 Are youth mindless animals herded by adults and institutions or driven about by every wind of doctrine? This seems unlikely. Philology, then, does not tell us much in this case. It is important to realize that the story about young people leaving the Church in droves is part of a particular narrative,45 one that is largely untrue."
Gee, John (2020-05-10). Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith . RSC, BYU, Deseret Book. Kindle Edition.

Gee's mangling of information so that it fits what he wants to say is also present in this extensive examination of what constitutes "a drove" (it goes on for page after page). The first thing to say is he picked the phrase "leaving in droves" despite already making the point that the General Authority being referenced (Gee refuses to use Elder Jensen's name, presumably because he doesn't want people doing their own research into what he actually said) didn't actually say that. If Jensen didn't say it then there's no need to try and minimise what "leaving in droves" means in terms of actual numbers. The problem Gee refuses to acknowledge is what Jensen actually said...

Q: Is the Church aware of that problem? Is there anything…I mean, the new manuals would help, I guess, “inoculation” within terms of youth would help. What about people who are already leaving in droves?

A: We are aware. Maybe I’ll just say this: You know what, I often get this question, “Do the brethren really know?” They do.

Q: [obscured by cross-talk]

A: And I’m not speaking of me; I’m speaking of the fifteen men that are above me in the hierarchy of the Church. They really do know. And they really care. And they realize that, maybe, since Kirtland we’ve never had a period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now, largely over these issues.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01 ... xaggerated

So in an examination of the claim around how many young people are leaving the Church, Gee should be addressing the comment "since Kirtland we’ve never had a period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now". But he doesn't do that, it's too specific a phrase, it's too credible because that is what Jensen actually said. Instead he chooses to go to great lengths examining what constitutes "a drove". Cheap, lazy, deliberately misleading.

Gee also claims that the narrative of people leaving the Church "is largely untrue". THEN WHY THE NEED FOR THE BOOK JOHN? But Gee does not supply any evidence to support his statement. Where are the attendance figures that would settle the matter once and for all? Gee is scrabbling around in the dark trying to sound knowledgable about current activity levels in the Church using decades old non faith specific data whilst trying to also maintain that there isn't a problem. Readers of his book might start off being unaware of an apostasy problem in the Church, but within a few chapters they'll realise Gee is trying too hard to explain something he claims isn't happening. He's going to great lengths to explain the man behind the curtain whilst simultaneously claiming there isn't a man behind the curtain. It's a truly bizarre publication.

[_mentalgymnast]

but I think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.

Only if it’s also fair to make the argument that many people who stay also “do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.“ In which case, it’s an attribute across the board. Gee is not acknowledging that, however. By discussing it only in the context of those who leave, he is implying that it is a cause, and that those with a more complete understanding stay.

It’s no different than mentalgymnast’s faulty argument that Jenkins is “biased” and therefore his arguments are worth less in the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, even though he later defined bias as something everyone has.

In the Jenkins-Hamblin debate or any other divide between the believers and non believers there will obviously be bias on both sides. Those biases reflect what type of knowledge is allowed at the table and whether or not that impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

Regards,
MG