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

[Guest]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well among Latter-day Saints. This is one of the reasons we have interviews with someone else to assess our worthiness and are not allowed just to determine for ourselves if we are worthy. People have a tendency to think their self-assessments are more accurate that than other’s assessments are.
(Gee, John - Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith Section 1 "Hardly perfect")

(bold mine)

Source, Gee? I might have missed it, but I publicly wager $1 with Gee that NO CHURCH LEADER EVER has attributed the need for priesthood interviews to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Not by direct reference, nor by articulating the requirement as he does: because "people have a tendency to think their self-assessments are more accurate than other's assessments."

He might find one, but I'd go double or nothing that such a GA statement was made in context of a person who doubts their worthiness and needs a priesthood leader to tell them, as a representative of Christ, that yes, he/she is worthy after all. Which is, of course, the antithesis of Gee's implied statement. He betrays his view of chronically inflated self-assessment when he says "...and are not allowed just to determine for ourselves if we are worthy." Gee thinks most people believe they're better than they are. He doesn't even consider the possibility that many people believe they're worse than they are.

Gee's assertion is wrong, in spirit and in letter. Self-assessment is, in fact, put on members at almost every point of decision for which worthiness matters to the church. If we weren't allowed "just to determine for ourselves" then there would be a brief interview every Sunday morning on the way in to Sacrament meetings (especially for the teenage boys!).

The priesthood interview, in its most sincere form, allows a person to articulate their self-assessment to a person who stands in for Christ. The interviewer determines worthiness based on the answers to questions like "do you consider yourself worthy." Gee claims Dunning-Kruger for an instance of using someone's watch to tell them the time. Mormons are not only "allowed" but "expected" to self-assess worthiness. Period.

Gee is a Pharisee who thinks so highly of his holy ideas, he is willing to transfer his mind into the mind of God who never said what he asserts God meant to say. The more I hear from Gee, the more I'm convinced he uses modern-day LDS prophets as nothing but mascots to ennoble his ultra sanctimonious notions of what constitutes righteousness.

[_Dr Moore]

The best argument against the Church's claim that you need to stay or join, and the one that is implicit in most people's leaving, has nothing to do with Mormon scripture or Mormon history or Mormon doctrine. That best argument is: living as a Mormon sucks; it has a low payoff but a high cost.

Something I'm hearing a LOT of lately around our stake. Thanks to 14 weeks (and counting) without church, even devout members in my area have realized how utterly empty going to church made them. Nevermind the opportunity cost of other activities -- the church itself takes far more than it gives, for most.

Anecdotally, in week 2 of quarantine, our ward held a testimony meeting over Zoom. 81 joined and the time was all used up. Last weekend, we held another one and only 2 people had anything to share. The meeting ended awkwardly. Every week of quarantine, our bishop has recruited help throughout the ward to compose a 30 minute video with uplifting talks and a message of hope. The production quality is pretty good. I see the viewing statistics on these videos. Each week, we get about 7 viewers who watch the whole thing. Another 7-10 watch for a few minutes and close the window.

Mormonism has a lot of virtues, but the return on capital in this life is terrible. To your other comments, the fact that so much of it is based on a false, dogmatic narrative only makes it easier to walk away. The afterlife promises would still be worth it, if it the founding claims were at all credible.

[_Symmachus]

The more I hear from Gee, the more I'm convinced he uses modern-day LDS prophets as nothing but mascots to ennoble his ultra sanctimonious notions of what constitutes righteousness.

Yes, the account of him in the Hauglid interview shows a secretive schemer willing to attack lower levels of the Church bureaucracy when it doesn't live up to his expectations. According to what I'm reading about his new book (sorry, not gonna buy it; I know why I quit the Church), the main problem with those who leave is that their knowledge wasn't deep enough. On the other hand, according to Hauglid, Gee thinks certain things are too deep for most members to ever know about.

[_Symmachus]

The afterlife promises would still be worth it, if it the founding claims were at all credible.

Yes, I think that's how the dynamic works: you chug along because Joseph Smith was a true prophet and all that, so therefore we'd better do what the Church says so that we get our reward someday. Then one day you find out that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old, thus destroying the basis on which the promise for future reward is made. If you're not gonna get the reward, why go on with it? Of course it takes on more complex forms, but that is the basic calculation that is implied.

Part of Gee's solution seems to be that you need a deeper understanding of what being a true prophet means. His conceptions apparently allows for adolescent-adult polygamous marriage, but that might fall under the other part of his solution, which is to hide it from people in the first place (according to Hauglid's characterization).

Good luck, Gee!

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

John Gee is really making the Asian Department proud. A book like this really enhances the reputation of BYU's Asian Studies program.

[_Philo Sofee]

Symmachs
Part of Gee's solution seems to be that you need a deeper understanding of what being a true prophet means.

Gee also thinks only those with degrees in Egyptology are worthy to write and comment about the Book of Abraham and the papyri. I wonder where that leaves any of the prophets, Jewish, Christian or Mormon, from the foundation of the world? They now must bend the knee to the great and knowledgable Egyptologist, Jesus inclusive. :rolleyes:

[_Kishkumen]

You are missing my point then. My point was that I disagree with your statement that you “think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.” If everyone has that same incomplete understanding, then it is NOT fair to allow an argument to stand that singles out those who leave, blaming it on their incomplete understanding.

Yes, I would not agree that everyone has the same kind of incomplete understanding. There are different perceptions and different degrees of understanding or misunderstanding. I would agree that some people who leave know less about the faith than they might. Some might not leave if they knew more. Some would still leave if they knew more and might have left even earlier. Certainly I have never said anything about blaming people or singling them out. I do acknowledge, however, that some people who leave have an incomplete understanding of it. I also questioned the value of understanding it better. So, yes, we do not agree. Thanks for clarifying our points of disagreement. I am comfortable standing by my original post, in which I acknowledge the incomplete understanding of some who leave without seeking to blame them for it.

[_Kishkumen]

IHAQ, I think I understand the point Gee is making here, and I don't know that it is entirely off base. Now, we can argue about how important it is or should be that people understand the LDS gospel. We can also fairly critique Gee for perhaps implying, intentionally or not, that apostates are stupid or misinformed, but I think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism. I think it is also fair for Gee to point out that some people have stronger spiritual convictions than others.

Of course, many of us can say that the LDS Church does not really facilitate an accurate or full understanding of Mormonism anyways, and that such an understanding really leads to the conclusion that the whole thing is garbage.

But I can see how a deeply committed believer who knows an awful lot about Mormonism might measure the knowledge of many leave-takers as severely wanting.

All excellent points, but I would be one of those who argue that it is not, or should not, be all that important that people understand the LDS Gospel.

Yes, of course, hence my statement: "Now, we can argue about how important it is or should be that people understand the LDS gospel." I will mark you down as one who thinks it is or should be unimportant.

[_Kishkumen]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well among Latter-day Saints. This is one of the reasons we have interviews with someone else to assess our worthiness and are not allowed just to determine for ourselves if we are worthy. People have a tendency to think their self-assessments are more accurate that than other’s assessments are.
(Gee, John - Saving Faith: How Families Protect, Sustain, and Encourage Faith Section 1 "Hardly perfect")

(bold mine)

Source, Gee? I might have missed it, but I publicly wager $1 with Gee that NO CHURCH LEADER EVER has attributed the need for priesthood interviews to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Not by direct reference, nor by articulating the requirement as he does: because "people have a tendency to think their self-assessments are more accurate than other's assessments."

He might find one, but I'd go double or nothing that such a GA statement was made in context of a person who doubts their worthiness and needs a priesthood leader to tell them, as a representative of Christ, that yes, he/she is worthy after all. Which is, of course, the antithesis of Gee's implied statement. He betrays his view of chronically inflated self-assessment when he says "...and are not allowed just to determine for ourselves if we are worthy." Gee thinks most people believe they're better than they are. He doesn't even consider the possibility that many people believe they're worse than they are.

Gee's assertion is wrong, in spirit and in letter. Self-assessment is, in fact, put on members at almost every point of decision for which worthiness matters to the church. If we weren't allowed "just to determine for ourselves" then there would be a brief interview every Sunday morning on the way in to Sacrament meetings (especially for the teenage boys!).

The priesthood interview, in its most sincere form, allows a person to articulate their self-assessment to a person who stands in for Christ. The interviewer determines worthiness based on the answers to questions like "do you consider yourself worthy." Gee claims Dunning-Kruger for an instance of using someone's watch to tell them the time. Mormons are not only "allowed" but "expected" to self-assess worthiness. Period.

Gee is a Pharisee who thinks so highly of his holy ideas, he is willing to transfer his mind into the mind of God who never said what he asserts God meant to say. The more I hear from Gee, the more I'm convinced he uses modern-day LDS prophets as nothing but mascots to ennoble his ultra sanctimonious notions of what constitutes righteousness.

I like a lot of what you are saying here, but I would say that your idealized view of what the interview process ought to be, while I sympathize with it and grant its authoritative grounding, runs up against the reality of plenty of people doing these interviews that actually think like Gee. And, frankly, sometimes people are overly confident of their ability to assess themselves to their own detriment. In other words, they would be much less kind to themselves than someone thinking with a Christlike attitude about the whole issue. That might be its own kind of Dunning-Kruger effect. I would wager that some of those who are drawn to Mormonism might be misunderstanding the repentance process and imagining it to be the self-flagellation process. President Kimball may have been among their number. Could we argue that overconfidence in their own knowledge of what it means to repent leads them to do themselves greater harm? I think so. There are all kinds of knowledge. Some of it is doctrinal. Some of it is emotional, spiritual, or psychological. Some who are advanced in doctrine are really stupid in other areas. Gee is probably among those who has his own Dunning-Kruger problems, as I think his apologetics show very clearly. It is not that he doesn't know a lot of things, have a lot of expertise, and have a really high IQ; the problem is that his fanaticism blinds him to his ethical compromises.

[_Lemmie]

Certainly I have never said anything about blaming people or singling them out.

Yes, noted, but the point is, Gee did do exactly that, and I am disagreeing with your point here that it was appropriate for him to do so:

We can also fairly critique Gee for perhaps implying, intentionally or not, that apostates are stupid or misinformed, but I think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.

If an “incomplete understanding of Mormonism” can be attributed across the board to all, then singling that out as a negative apostate attribute is not valid.

I think it is also fair for Gee to point out that some people have stronger spiritual convictions than others.

Not if he “points out” that those who stay are the ones with stronger spiritual convictions.

Again, this is a statistical argument I am making. If an attribute is in evidence in both LDS and non-LDS, then commenting on a negative but common attribute ONLY in one group in order to disparage them, while simultaneously commenting on another positive but common attribute ONLY in the other group in order to congratulate them is just irresponsible writing. It is not “fair” for Gee to point out such statistically insupportable nonsense as though he were stating facts.