New Interpreter Article a flop: Don't bother reading it

[_Gadianton]

I ultimately agree with Kishkumen that Mormonism isn't anymore obviously untrue than any other religion (don't get too excited apologists!) Forget about Scientology, just read the book of Deuteronomy from beginning to end. You can't possibly think: boy, maybe these guys might have been onto something?

But I also agree with Physic's Guy's point in the context of this thread regarding the apologist exhortation to use our evolutionary wired gut reaction processing that helped us survive attacks from bears from way-back-when to make our most important life decisions. If we do that, then most likely Mormonism is going to lose. In that respect, Mormonism just might be the world's most obvious made up religion because it so closely follows tropes about the rockstar conman: Grade A asshole dupes all his friends into giving him their money and letting him bang their girlfriends, and then when he runs into trouble, his balls are so freaking huge that he makes up revelations about "ultimate concerns" right there on the spot to get him out of one pickle after another.

That just shows, however, that even intelligent people outside Mormonism are prone to the same kind of errors in analysis that got dyed-in-the-wool believers suckered into their religion in the first place.

In plain-to-understand terms, I think Sartre put it pretty well in his example about deciding between staying home to help grandma or going off to find in the revolution. How does the small amount of good that you will do in a matter of grave consequences measure up against a large amount of good you can do right now for a local concern? "Ultimate Questions" have had a lot of brilliant people banging their heads against them and still coming up short. So how much time should the average person realistically spend thinking about it verses getting on with life? The wisdom of DCP here was put in stark terms by Tommy Boy's Father when he said, "I could shove my head up a bulls ass to get a good look at a T-bone, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."

Dallin Oaks is DCP's butcher, but we all have one -- those who don't have a tough road ahead.

[_toon]

Gigerenzer asked a simple question of students at both the University of Chicago and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (i.e., the University of Munich, in Germany): “Which city has more residents, San Diego or San Antonio?”

Of the American students, 62% gave the right answer, “San Diego.” But fully 100% of the German students were able to answer the question correctly. Why? Because German students are so much better than American students, even at the elite University of Chicago? No. Because the German students knew less than the American students did:

All of the German students had at least heard of San Diego, whereas only a few had heard of San Antonio. So they chose the more familiar name. Both cities, however, were known to the Americans. They had more information, and for precisely that reason often chose incorrectly.11

So because younger internet Mormons know more about LDS history, and core theology as it was taught, than the chapel Mormon, they are more likely to be wrong about the truth?

I am not sure how to interpret Dan's point other than "don't confuse me with the facts, I have already been told what to believe."

So an instance of an availability bias also being factually correct means . . .?

[_Kishkumen]

I ultimately agree with Kishkumen that Mormonism isn't anymore obviously untrue than any other religion (don't get too excited apologists!) Forget about Scientology, just read the book of Deuteronomy from beginning to end. You can't possibly think: boy, maybe these guys might have been onto something?

But I also agree with Physic's Guy's point in the context of this thread regarding the apologist exhortation to use our evolutionary wired gut reaction processing that helped us survive attacks from bears from way-back-when to make our most important life decisions. If we do that, then most likely Mormonism is going to lose. In that respect, Mormonism just might be the world's most obvious made up religion because it so closely follows tropes about the rockstar conman: Grade A asshole dupes all his friends into giving him their money and letting him bang their girlfriends, and then when he runs into trouble, his balls are so freaking huge that he makes up revelations about "ultimate concerns" right there on the spot to get him out of one pickle after another.

Again, I just don't see how LRH's megalomania is any less obvious than Joseph Smith's. The idea that this is just about auditing for most members is patently ludicrous. How about SeaOrg? I'm sorry, but signing a 1-billion-year contract on your soul in the service of Scientology is just one more obviously made up idea in a long list of obviously made up things. Now, it may be the case that Scientology has perfected the art of selling itself as a harmless panacea, but that does not make the religion any less obviously made up. Unless someone is completely ignorant of Scientology, it is hard for me to understand how one would not conclude, very quickly, that it is glaringly obvious how made up it is.

Thetans anyone? And, really? E-meters are not obviously made up?

https://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/basic-principles-of-scientology/the-thetan.html

[_Gadianton]

I need to clarify. I agree wish Kish's basic point that Mormonism isn't any less obviously untrue than any other religion assuming a fair analysis. I agree with PG's basic point that based on the gut-reaction untrue meter, Mormonism is a home run, assuming one has the basic facts about origins the Church conceals. If Kish is saying Mormonism isn't any less obviously untrue than other religions because look at scientology, I disagree because scientology is way out there and doesn't make a good baseline for comparison. Yes, I think scientology is as wacked or more than Mormonism. If PG is saying scientology is more believable than Mormonism, I disagree, but we've got to compare apples with apples. A big problem is the two "religions" appeal to totally different audiences.

I've read Dianetics cover to cover, several other Scientology books, and a friend of mine was in the Sea Org so I know a little more than average.

At the "first discussion" level, I don't think Mormonism strikes any bad gut reactions beyond what any other Christian religion would strike. In fact, in a blind test, give a person vaguely familiar with Christianity the book of Deuteronomy and give them anything from the Book of Mormon, and see what better resonates with them on a spiritual level, and I'm guessing the "Bible-writing" book of modern concerns does better on average. Now give them the south park version of the Joseph Smith story and it's all over.

Scientology. Scientology doesn't appeal to Christians. It appeals to hipster independent thinkers. People get suckered into Scientology by their pop programs for improving memory, critical thinking, intelligence, and stuff like that. That's what hooked my friend. He claimed auditing with the e-meters greatly increased his IQ. That sounds as crazy to the average person with a Christian background as the Book of Mormon does to a LA hipster. But being fair with target audience I don't think that one at the first discussion level is more crazy than the other.

But then, Xenu and the 1 billion year contract and so on. So, just like a TBM who suddenly is in a faith crises over polygamy and the first vision and treasure seeking, my friend who was in the sea org in the late 80s early 90s had information about advanced courses leaked to him by one of his mentors there and it was all over. He went into full rebellion mode and got out, but it wasn't easy and they hounded him for years afterward. He received random harassment calls a couple of times while I was at his apartment hanging out after work. And try having a "scientology discussion board" like this one -- might want to watch your back.

So I think Mormonism and Scientology are equally obviously bunk by the gut-reaction meter when considering their very different target audiences when providing the south park introduction, I think the Book of Mormon and Dianetics and the basic faithful history are both compelling for their target audiences. There's a reason they exist.

[_Kishkumen]

OK. Point taken. I think most of us know that Mormonism and Scientology introduce themselves to potential converts in a way that is designed to seem more plausible.

But to me the question is “which is more obviously made up?” That’s pretty open, and I would have to go with the one that is not clearly tied to an ancient tradition. Now, Scientology is drawing on ancient traditions, but one would hardly know it based on the way it is presented. I would guess that would scream “made up” to a larger number of people, but I could be wrong.

I also tend to think that the number of adventurous hipsters is smaller than the number of people looking for a “Christian” church, but I could be wrong about that too.

[_Gadianton]

I also tend to think that the number of adventurous hipsters is smaller than the number of people looking for a “Christian” church.

I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure the exactly fair way to judge which religion comes off as the greater scam based on cognitive biases so this is a weird discussion. lol.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dean Robbers:

Thank you so much for warning all of us against the fundamental stupidity of this article. It's true: this is a work of almost unrelenting awfulness. You really have to wonder how the Mopologists lost their way. What is this supposed to be defending? The notion that research is bad? (Answer: yes, it's sort of bad, depending on what you're researching.) Is this meant to be a straight-up "lickspittle" defense of Elder Oaks? (I guess so?) Though so much of this undercuts Elder Oaks's basic point, that it's hard to view this as a successful Mopologetic defense of Oaks and his interests.

But there is just so much wrong with the article. Take this, for example:

Nevertheless, in the last analysis, I agree with President Oaks. Apart from the most simple and noncontroversial topics, research and scholarly argument will almost always be tentative, inconclusive, reaching probable conclusions and arguing for positions that invite qualifications and counterarguments. What caused the fall of Rome? Who wrote the Odyssey and the Iliad? What are the roles of nature and nurture in human personality? What is the ultimate origin of morality? These and thousands of other such questions have been and continue to be disputed — to say nothing of such far deeper and more essential questions as whether there is a God, whether Jesus really rose from the dead, or whether Joseph Smith was divinely inspired.

And yet, in matters of ultimate concern — religious questions, really, whether one answers them “religiously” or not — decisions must be made. Such decisions are inescapable. Not to decide is, itself, to decide. Moreover, they must be made in the absence of definitive, objective, publicly demonstrable “proof.”

Do I really need to point out that the questions of "Who wrote the Odyssey and the Iliad" and all the other questions he poses, do not ask that you pay 10% of your income? Or that you fork over hours of your time (as Midgley has repeatedly complained/"opined" about?)? In essence, what he's saying here is that you have to make very mortal decisions--about how much money you will pay, about whom you can marry, about ways that you will be (voluntarily) culturally limited, about how much time you will need to give up--"in the absence of definitive, objective, publicly demonstrable 'proof.'" Boy, that's an oversimplification, isn't it?

It's also a distraction, as others have pointed out. At the end of the day, what is it that Elder Oaks is warning people against? What is it that they might "research" that will draw them away? ExMormon.org? The Letter to a CES Instructor? What if wavering Mormons read the articles that were written by the FARMS Review-era Mopologists? And what if that draws them away from the Church? What if people "research" Rodney Meldrum's materials, and learn how "evil" the people are over at FAIR and Mormon Interpreter? Given this context, you have to assume that Oaks is *also* referring to internecine conflicts. What I mean is: if Elder Oaks had his way, *no one* would read either: (a) Interpreter; (b) Rodney Meldrum; (c) The CES Letter; (d) FAIRMormon; (e) pretty much any "anti-Mormon" website; (f) anything that might suck a member away from the Church.

So, DCP's "article" (and I sincerely doubt that this went through the normal "peer review"; if it did, let them prove it by publishing the "comments" from the two [Or more???] reviewers) really has to be seen as being in conflict with Oaks's talk. The critical commentator in the Mormon Interpreter comments section is correct in that regard. If not, then let the Mopologists list of ithe topics that are acceptable to research. That is the basic problem with this whole discussion: the issue is not the *venue*; it's the information itself. So let the Mopologists identify the best place to learn the truth about Book of Mormon archaeology. Let them name the place to learn the truth about Kolob and "TK Smoothies." Let them point the way to the best, most authoritative information on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Let them tell us all about polygamy!

Oaks's position is that all of this should be avoided: "Research is not the answer." No kidding! The weird disjuncture in DCP's article is that he simultaneously tried to defend Oaks at the same time that he tries to justify his own "role" within the Mormon hierarchy. He needs to justify his own reason for existing, even though that existence is in conflict with Oaks's talk.

[Guest]

If Oaks believes "research is not the answer", why does he still fund the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRMormon)?
Why is the Church spending $millions on the Joseph Smith Papers project?
Why are the essays still up?

One of the things DCP's dogs-breakfast-of-an-article does well, is highlight the incongruity of what Mr Oaks said to young married couples. It's in the comparison between what he said and what the Church does that one sees the complete lack of; consistency, joined-up thinking, and clear leadership within the Q15. Mr Oaks & Co. are providing and publicly lauding more and more sources for people to do research whilst simultaneously telling people not to do research.

[_Stem]

Oaks addressed believing married people who have spouses who have grown skeptical for various reasons. Peterson is missing the boat. He's suggesting that it's good to say research is not the answer to questions like "Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?" But we know those aren't the questions that a skeptical spouse is going to ask a believing spouse.

Peterson's piece sucks because he's trying to change Oaks' message from one of "believers don't look into concerns brought up by loved ones" to "well since there are no answers to some of life's questions, we shouldn't see research as a way to answer those unanswerable questions." it sucks to advise members to tune out, shut down, and ignore loved ones.

Peterson has plain took the quote and ran in a new direction. Even if Oaks said what Peterson is blathering on about, though, his piece still sucks.

[_jfro18]

Oaks addressed believing married people who have spouses who have grown skeptical for various reasons. Peterson is missing the boat. He's suggesting that it's good to say research is not the answer to questions like "Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?" But we know those aren't the questions that a skeptical spouse is going to ask a believing spouse.

This is 100% right. Just as Corbridge told members the primary questions about the church start off with two questions that are not exclusive to Mormonism (about God/Jesus), Peterson here is deflecting Oaks' comment away from researching *church* problems to researching life questions.

It's one of the most dishonest ways to approach Oaks' boneheaded comment, yet Peterson seems to thrive in those situations.