I'm forced to say it's 'remarkable'

[Gadianton]

I'm Forced to say it's 'Remarkable'
A review of Dr. Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's book

A big thanks to Dan for forcing the issue at Interpreter and getting this review published.

Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's attempt at politically conservative sociology does not exude Midgley's trademark wrath against the critics. This is not the man I know who will cross an ocean to give a critic a piece of his mind. And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.

I have tossed out several earlier attempts to address the contents of each of its excellent chapters. When I first began to draft a review, I discovered that I simply could not address all of the excellent content in each of its ten chapters.

Normally I'd point out that the apologist should feign objectivity for the sake of convincing their base that they would point out a flaw if they saw one, but this time the unilateral praise feels like checking boxes. It's "remarkable", "every word is excellent okay? Goodbye, I've got other things to do now."

Although Dr. Midgley should be applauded for his brevity and ability to get to the point, something Interpreter contributors struggle with immensely, given the supposed complexity of Gee's book, his short statement on Gee's work feels inadequate. It may very well be that after putting countless hours into vindicating Gee on every point, cog dis built up to the point where he couldn't tie it together, and had to abandon the effort.

If I have counted correctly, Saving Faith has 1,052 footnotes, and at least half of these draw upon contemporary social science scholarship central to the issues addressed in the book. The reader can be assured that Gee has not manufactured evidence to support a revisionist ideology, which some others seem to have done.2

Others have pointed out this doosy. This is Gee's Nibley influence. "If you want to know where I got that specific point, go read the entire library like I did!"

Saving Faith begins by addressing rumors (rife in some circles) that Latter-day Saint young people are leaving their faith in “droves.” He demonstrates that while, in America, we do “lose some of our youth, certainly more than we would like,” the fact is that, when compared with Roman Catholics and Protestants, “we hold on to more of our youth than anyone else”

“Most of the reasons why youth leave the Church have to do with either [Page 227]events that disrupt routines (for example, divorce, moving) or behaviors (for example, drugs, drink, sex, or sin), not intellectual issues” (p. 290). “Doubts” it turns out, “generally play a role” in youth leaving the Church of Jesus Christ “only when combined with other factors,” which include “a lack of commitment to and the importance set on the Church in the teenage years by their parents”

Par for the course. "The critics have nothing! the youth are leaving due to sin, and their parents' sin!"

It's an interesting data point if true that Mormon youth are leaving in smaller droves than elsewhere. It would be nice to know if the reasons are the same. Are the youth leaving the Catholic church for intellectual reasons or the same reasons Mormons are? If intellectual reasons are a non-issue, then why do we need Mopologetics?

The “statistically effective factors for individuals to retain their faith are,” Gee demonstrates, “(1) daily prayer, (2) regular scripture reading, (3) weekly Church attendance, and (4) keeping the law of chastity” (p. 290).

Studying FARMS doesn't even come in at number 5?

I feel like either Midgley or Gee is leaving something out, but let's continue:

We need to give youth and young adults reasons to believe rather than reasons not to leave. … This is not about changing the Church so that atheist determinists or moral relativists (or followers of whatever wind of doctrine) can feel comfortable coming to church,

And --

A number of the topics discussed [in this book] are sensitive to various people,

we do not like having our pet sins pointed out or poked.

Midgley says the book is fantastic, touches the Mopologist talking points, and it's a wrap. The first talking point: "It's not for intellectual reasons!" Sure. My personal experiences agree. I've said before that out of all the people I personally know in real life who have fallen to inactivity, I can't think of anyone who even claims it's for intellectual reasons but me. But if the reason is "sin", and the fix is read, pray, and go to church, did we really need a book with 1000 footnotes to tell us what we already know? The sin accusations are mainly the apologists swinging their axes at online critics. "You guys aren't intellectuals, you're a bunch of sinners!"

Are youth leaving the Catholic Church leaving mainly due to sin? This generation of youth is just several times more sinful than Midgley's generation? There isn't anything else to explore -- social media, online gaming, explosive cost of living for young people while their church hoards wealth? Trauma from school shootings? Trauma from online bullying? Exposure of child predation rampant throughout close-knit religious communities and leaders fighting tooth-and-nail to cover it up?

Oh, there is that other talking point. We don't need to become the Church of woke. Sure. I somewhat agree with that also. Years ago, Don Bradly wrote a review of Sam Harris and the point that stuck out the most to me was the point that churches that liberalize fail. It's fundamentalism that sells.

And so, I really don't disagree with Midgley's main two talking points, except that all Gee is really doing is swinging his axe at liberal believers and critics while his boat is sinking. It's not for intellectual reasons, and liberalizing probably won't work; great, but it can't all be just because of sin and lazy parenting. There is a universal phenomena here, but all Gee really has to say is that the gaping hole in our boat is one centimeter less in diameter than the giant hole in all the other boats.

From Migdley's review, it sounds like Gee has written a book that merely toes the Mopologist party line and fails to even try to understand why there is a big hole in all the boats on the lake. Instead of seriously trying to understand the problem, they're standing in their sinking boat screaming at everyone they don't like, calling them out as sinners. Is this virtue-signaling to the Brethren? Mopologist tunnel vision? Obstinance with such momentum it just can't stop? It seems like the book is pointless, and that Midgley tacitly agrees, as he offers the lowest-energy by-the-numbers review I've ever seen from him.

[drumdude]

It’s striking how much more salient your review is than his.

There was very little to pick through, he might as well have made it a SeN comment.

[Tom]

In late 2020, shortly after it was published, Saving Faith was pulled from publication by its publisher, BYU’s Religious Studies Center. There was no formal statement as to why the decision was made, but it occurred after a very negative online reaction to statements made by Gee in Chapter 6, “The Ruthless War of Promiscuity.” In summarizing statistical data on the causes of homosexuality, Gee’s words were lifted out of context and twisted by those who felt threatened by his use of data.

Last night, the old High Priest in Ogden and I spoke by phone about the review. He asked whether Dr. Midgley had run up against a word limit in his review. The old High Priest said he expected to see some supporting evidence that “Gee’s words were lifted out of context and twisted.” Instead, he observed, Dr. Midgley moved on. Argument by assertion. Truly remarkable.

[Kishkumen]

It’s striking how much more salient your review is than his.

There was very little to pick through, he might as well have made it a SeN comment.

Agreed. Excellent review of the review, Dean.

[Marcus]

and only three Midgley footnotes. Something is up, indeed.

I found this part quite disingenuous.

...Lacking any public statements by the publisher, those who howled at Gee’s statements were able to claim victory — their foe had been vanquished and they, the victors, must be right and Gee must be wrong. One of the howlers triumphantly stated — without providing any supporting evidence — that the book was pulled “because of author John Gee’s statements about homosexuality and child sexual abuse.”3 Gee was obviously evil, and those opposed to him were happy — almost gleeful — to tell us why. The online book-burning was a rousing success, and fun was had by all.

Footnote three goes to a piece by a well-known and respected 'howler', Jana Reiss. Her article starts like this:

Last month, the Brigham Young University Religious Studies Center halted publication of “Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith” by BYU professor John Gee, an Egyptologist who generally writes about the Book of Abraham but here attempts to synthesize secondary literature in the sociology of religion. According to the publisher, the book is currently under additional review.

The controversies about the book hinged upon some problematic statements the author made about sexuality, including that victims of sexual abuse “are more likely to become sexual abusers of children” themselves, and that “homosexuality is related to childhood sexual abuse.”

I won’t address those problems here,as they have been very competently discussed elsewhere and were a small portion of the book. But I’d like to weigh in on the larger problems in how Gee treats sociological research, particularly since he utilizes the data that Benjamin Knoll and I collected for “The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church” (Oxford, 2019)...

she then continues to make her case for the problems Gee has with interpreting and using data in his book. She is very clear and quite detailed.

additionally, i replicated her link in the blue above, it goes to By Common Consent, where a guest post is introduced:

This guest post is by Kevin Shafer, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Brigham Young University and an adjunct associate professor of Health & Society at McMaster University (Canada). He holds a PhD in Sociology from The Ohio State University. His scholarship focuses on mental health and father involvement in a cross-national perspective.

he begins quite emphatically:

...In his new book, Saving Faith, Egyptologist John Gee makes assertions about child abuse victimization, LGBTQ+ identity, and the potential for child abuse victims to become perpetrators of abuse in adulthood. These are questions that are central to social science and strong claims are being made by someone without training in psychology, sociology, social work, economics, or related disciplines.

Professor Gee’s lack of expertise in these areas is may have led him to make errors that lead to problematic claims that are not born out by research.

In contrast to Professor Gee, I am a sociologist that researches gender, mental health (including childhood adversity), and family life. Here, I discuss two claims made in the book and why they are not based in science or current church statements on sexuality...

[bolding added by me.]

For Midgley to include the link in his footnote, but not be clear about the details, and then to conclude with this, below, is not scholarship in any way.

"Gee was obviously evil, and those opposed to him were happy — almost gleeful — to tell us why. The online book-burning was a rousing success, and fun was had by all."


Still no peer review at the Interpreter, clearly.

[Marcus]

I'm Forced to say it's 'Remarkable'

If I have counted correctly, Saving Faith has 1,052 footnotes, and at least half of these draw upon contemporary social science scholarship central to the issues addressed in the book. The reader can be assured that Gee has not manufactured evidence to support a revisionist ideology, which some others seem to have done.2

...Others have pointed out this doosy. This is Gee's Nibley influence. "If you want to know where I got that specific point, go read the entire library like I did!" ...

That really does sum up the footnote problem. I always check footnotes when i read an apologetic effort, and the amount of obfuscation, weaselly quoting of oneself as a source, and just outright lying about the reference in the link is overwhelming. Is there a Mopologetic class taught somewhere on footnoting: "how to skirt the truth, imply the opposite, and justify an outright lie" ?????

Or maybe it's just bred into them. I still can't get over the excuse for putting 1 million on a tax document which was submitted to the IRS, when the correct amount was 32 BILLION:

“It wasn’t an accurate answer. It wasn’t meant to be an accurate answer,” L. Todd Budge, second counselor in the three-member Presiding Bishopric and former banking and private-equity executive, told the paper. “It was simply meant to communicate that we do not feel that we’re obligated to fill in that box.”

[Marcus]

before it gets deleted

Paul Stansfield on July 14, 2023 at 12:48 pm said:

From my reading of Gee’s book, it would appear the issue was the many unsubstantiated claims Gee made.

It’s certainly should have been peer reviewed. That would have solved the problems.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... /?id=67071

[drumdude]

before it gets deleted

Paul Stansfield on July 14, 2023 at 12:48 pm said:

From my reading of Gee’s book, it would appear the issue was the many unsubstantiated claims Gee made.

It’s certainly should have been peer reviewed. That would have solved the problems.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... /?id=67071

Didn’t the Interpreter crew give Jeremy Runnels and Brent Metcalfe no end of grief for not being qualified to talk about Mormonism?

What are Gee’s qualifications to speak about social science?

[Rivendale]

I'm Forced to say it's 'Remarkable'
A review of Dr. Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's book

A big thanks to Dan for forcing the issue at Interpreter and getting this review published.

Midgley's review of Dr. Gee's attempt at politically conservative sociology does not exude Midgley's trademark wrath against the critics. This is not the man I know who will cross an ocean to give a critic a piece of his mind. And so, my biggest criticism of his essay is that he doesn't sell me on his belief that Dr. Gee's book is 'remarkable.' It feels like he was forced to write it.

I have tossed out several earlier attempts to address the contents of each of its excellent chapters. When I first began to draft a review, I discovered that I simply could not address all of the excellent content in each of its ten chapters.

Normally I'd point out that the apologist should feign objectivity for the sake of convincing their base that they would point out a flaw if they saw one, but this time the unilateral praise feels like checking boxes. It's "remarkable", "every word is excellent okay? Goodbye, I've got other things to do now."

Although Dr. Midgley should be applauded for his brevity and ability to get to the point, something Interpreter contributors struggle with immensely, given the supposed complexity of Gee's book, his short statement on Gee's work feels inadequate. It may very well be that after putting countless hours into vindicating Gee on every point, cog dis built up to the point where he couldn't tie it together, and had to abandon the effort.

If I have counted correctly, Saving Faith has 1,052 footnotes, and at least half of these draw upon contemporary social science scholarship central to the issues addressed in the book. The reader can be assured that Gee has not manufactured evidence to support a revisionist ideology, which some others seem to have done.2

Others have pointed out this doosy. This is Gee's Nibley influence. "If you want to know where I got that specific point, go read the entire library like I did!"

Saving Faith begins by addressing rumors (rife in some circles) that Latter-day Saint young people are leaving their faith in “droves.” He demonstrates that while, in America, we do “lose some of our youth, certainly more than we would like,” the fact is that, when compared with Roman Catholics and Protestants, “we hold on to more of our youth than anyone else”

“Most of the reasons why youth leave the Church have to do with either [Page 227]events that disrupt routines (for example, divorce, moving) or behaviors (for example, drugs, drink, sex, or sin), not intellectual issues” (p. 290). “Doubts” it turns out, “generally play a role” in youth leaving the Church of Jesus Christ “only when combined with other factors,” which include “a lack of commitment to and the importance set on the Church in the teenage years by their parents”

Par for the course. "The critics have nothing! the youth are leaving due to sin, and their parents' sin!"

It's an interesting data point if true that Mormon youth are leaving in smaller droves than elsewhere. It would be nice to know if the reasons are the same. Are the youth leaving the Catholic church for intellectual reasons or the same reasons Mormons are? If intellectual reasons are a non-issue, then why do we need Mopologetics?

The “statistically effective factors for individuals to retain their faith are,” Gee demonstrates, “(1) daily prayer, (2) regular scripture reading, (3) weekly Church attendance, and (4) keeping the law of chastity” (p. 290).

Studying FARMS doesn't even come in at number 5?

I feel like either Midgley or Gee is leaving something out, but let's continue:

We need to give youth and young adults reasons to believe rather than reasons not to leave. … This is not about changing the Church so that atheist determinists or moral relativists (or followers of whatever wind of doctrine) can feel comfortable coming to church,

And --

A number of the topics discussed [in this book] are sensitive to various people,

we do not like having our pet sins pointed out or poked.

Midgley says the book is fantastic, touches the Mopologist talking points, and it's a wrap. The first talking point: "It's not for intellectual reasons!" Sure. My personal experiences agree. I've said before that out of all the people I personally know in real life who have fallen to inactivity, I can't think of anyone who even claims it's for intellectual reasons but me. But if the reason is "sin", and the fix is read, pray, and go to church, did we really need a book with 1000 footnotes to tell us what we already know? The sin accusations are mainly the apologists swinging their axes at online critics. "You guys aren't intellectuals, you're a bunch of sinners!"

Are youth leaving the Catholic Church leaving mainly due to sin? This generation of youth is just several times more sinful than Midgley's generation? There isn't anything else to explore -- social media, online gaming, explosive cost of living for young people while their church hoards wealth? Trauma from school shootings? Trauma from online bullying? Exposure of child predation rampant throughout close-knit religious communities and leaders fighting tooth-and-nail to cover it up?

Oh, there is that other talking point. We don't need to become the Church of woke. Sure. I somewhat agree with that also. Years ago, Don Bradly wrote a review of Sam Harris and the point that stuck out the most to me was the point that churches that liberalize fail. It's fundamentalism that sells.

And so, I really don't disagree with Midgley's main two talking points, except that all Gee is really doing is swinging his axe at liberal believers and critics while his boat is sinking. It's not for intellectual reasons, and liberalizing probably won't work; great, but it can't all be just because of sin and lazy parenting. There is a universal phenomena here, but all Gee really has to say is that the gaping hole in our boat is one centimeter less in diameter than the giant hole in all the other boats.

From Migdley's review, it sounds like Gee has written a book that merely toes the Mopologist party line and fails to even try to understand why there is a big hole in all the boats on the lake. Instead of seriously trying to understand the problem, they're standing in their sinking boat screaming at everyone they don't like, calling them out as sinners. Is this virtue-signaling to the Brethren? Mopologist tunnel vision? Obstinance with such momentum it just can't stop? It seems like the book is pointless, and that Midgley tacitly agrees, as he offers the lowest-energy by-the-numbers review I've ever seen from him.

That was awesome thanks for that. Especially the part about the gaping one centimeter hole is better than all the others. I have been noticing that in several areas of apologetics.

[DrStakhanovite]

Dean, this was fantastic reading.

Although Dr. Midgley should be applauded for his brevity and ability to get to the point, something Interpreter contributors struggle with immensely, given the supposed complexity of Gee's book, his short statement on Gee's work feels inadequate. It may very well be that after putting countless hours into vindicating Gee on every point, cog dis built up to the point where he couldn't tie it together, and had to abandon the effort.

Genuinely made me lol.