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

[_Symmachus]

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.

Yes, I saw that, but I assumed it was all right to offer my view as one so marked, and Dr. Moore's response confirms that was justified in any case, Revend. There is little danger in not offering commentary here, but I say, why take the chance?

And what else are you marking down in that book? Will this affect my parking privileges and/or access to the red stapler I so cherish once Cassius returns from Covid vacation (assuming I get another semester contract teaching introductory Jaredite)?

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.

I had a bishop who used to tell us before our interviews that he could see our sins by looking into our eyes.

"Well, then, I'm sorry you had to see that, bishop." I said.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

No, Lemmie. I regret our misunderstanding on this point, but I did not support him in singling anyone out.

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.

Of course it is not valid. I never said it was.

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

Perhaps it would help if I made explicit what I had thought was implicit but obvious. The topic is particular spiritual convictions about the LDS gospel as it is predominantly understood within the strictures of the correlated LDS Church.

Naturally anyone of us can have spiritual convictions or we can choose not to. Some strong spiritual convictions can lead us out of the LDS Church. That is, in fact, exactly what happened to me. I would say that if John Gee has stronger spiritual convictions about the importance of following the Brethren, whereas I have stronger spiritual convictions about not doing the same, I will not contest with him that he does have stronger spiritual convictions for obeying the Brethren than I do. My spiritual convictions just lead me not to give a damn about that.

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.

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.

Your reading of my use of the word fair is noted, but it does not accord with what I meant. Fair in this situation would have never meant that I expected him to be anything less than partisan. Starting with that acknowledgment, I can say that it is at least fair to note things that are factually true, even if they are woefully incomplete and misleading, because I have very low expectations, as I think anyone who is not partisan for Gee's position must be. Please do continue to hold him to this exacting standard, though. I don't think he or anyone else like him will meet it, but it is definitely a good standard to have and I am very happy to know that this is where you are coming from.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, I saw that, but I assumed it was all right to offer my view as one so marked, and Dr. Moore's response confirms that was justified in any case, Revend. There is little danger in not offering commentary here, but I say, why take the chance?

Smart man.

And what else are you marking down in that book? Will this affect my parking privileges and/or access to the red stapler I so cherish once Cassius returns from Covid vacation (assuming I get another semester contract teaching introductory Jaredite)?

Ho, ho! Yes, well, I feel the need to say that I keep a little notebook to remind me of things I might forget that would result in unnecessary, onerous, and rude interactions that can be attributed to my obtuseness and forgetfulness. I am really trying to spare others unwanted and undeserved exchanges.

I had a bishop who used to tell us before our interviews that he could see our sins by looking into our eyes.

"Well, then, I'm sorry you had to see that, bishop." I said.

Some people have kooks for bishops. I am sorry you had to listen to him at all.

[Guest]

Your reading of my use of the word fair is noted, but it does not accord with what I meant. Fair in this situation would have never meant that I expected him to be anything less than partisan.

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

[_Lemmie]

I had a bishop who used to tell us before our interviews that he could see our sins by looking into our eyes.

"Well, then, I'm sorry you had to see that, bishop." I said.

You and one of my brothers. Actually, he had a bishop threaten to tell our Dad about some imagined sin, to which he responded that he would likewise share the sins of the Bishop’s son who was his age and had harassed some kid at scout camp.

My Dad never heard from the Bishop. Arguing that Bishops’ interviews counteract the Dunning-Kruger effect is just nonsense.

[Guest]

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.

Let me (or lemmie, if you prefer) make sure I have this: some Mormons know jackshit about Mormonism but keep it up, some ex-Mormons know jackshit about Mormonism but don't keep it up. Gee is being unfair in attacking the first category for a given factor but not the second, despite the presence of the same factor—is that it?

If so, I think it is true as a matter of formal reasoning but, at risk of violating unspoken norms about moving away from the focus of the topic, I don't see how it matters. If I understand you correctly, then the conclusion I draw is that knowing a lot about Mormonism does not lead to a commitment.

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 PhD. Buy my book."

Now you've got it out of your system, how about some work on Akkadian for your new department, Professor Gee?

Actually, he had a bishop threaten to tell our Dad about some imagined sin, to which he responded that he would likewise share the sins of the Bishop’s son who was his age and had harassed some kid at scout camp.

Totally normal adult-adolescent interaction.

[_Kishkumen]

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 don't think I ever claimed that his overall approach was fair, as I think a fair reading of my posts in this thread shows.

[_Lemmie]

....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.

Well said. Of course his goal is to comfort committed believers. And make money doing so. And mangle every relevant statistical technique in so doing, because his audience is okay with that. Utah is the capital of affinity fraud and MLM pyramid schemes for a reason, is it not?!

Actually, he had a bishop threaten to tell our Dad about some imagined sin, to which he responded that he would likewise share the sins of the Bishop’s son who was his age and had harassed some kid at scout camp.

Totally normal adult-adolescent interaction.

I know, right? My brother is 15 years younger than me and about a decade behind in working through the damage. My heart aches for him.

[_Symmachus]

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 don't think I ever claimed that his overall approach was fair, as I think a fair reading of my posts in this thread shows.

See, this gets to the problem I opened up, for which I earned your mark above: ex Mormons have hard time admitting that, to the believing frame of reference, they really do want to sin, don't have a testimony, don't fully understand the gospel, etc. Instead, they deny this and lay down their credentials as full believers, very active, committed, etc. and (of course!) sixth generation Mormons or whatever. All that is supposed to justify that these good people left the Church when they found out this or that. They did nothing wrong (when one mine this line of reasoning a bit more deeply, one will find a vein of evangelism as well). It is attempt to shut down a powerful criticism.

Now, obviously, at the point of their discovery of this or that, all of those credentials may have been active, but the minute they entertained the possibility that the Authorized Version is junk, those credentials cease to matter, at least in the reference of the believer. At this moment, sin lieth at the door, because it becomes the gateway to Sunday shopping and other grievous offenses against the Church.

There is a great deal of clarity from admitting that the believers are right from their point-of-view; the non-believer needs to say only that s/he doesn't accept that point-of-view.

Or as a sibling put it to a relative: "I'm gonna have a drink; you can deal with it, or you can “F” off."

It was funeral cheer for all!

[_Dr Exiled]

What's to understand about the gospel that is so complex? Jesus, who may or may not have existed, supposedly had to die a horrible death because his overly authoritarian father wanted to destroy his children for acting like he planned they would act all along and then blamed them for doing so. This imaginary Jesus supposedly then inspires Joseph Smith to "translate" a book about these Jewish native americans of which no proof exists that they existed and supposedly inspires his modern leaders to change schedules periodically while hiding the money they collect from the duped members ....

Gee is just another magician trying to add complexity and secrecy to the mundane in order to get more religious sales. Blame the idiots for leaving. He has a PhD and so must be smarter than the stupid apostates. He has a secret and you cannot know it because it is too sacred to tell. Only certain PhD's are capable of grasping the "complexity" that is cojcolds. Maybe someday you will be granted a peek at the glorious secret, if you make sure and pay your 10% without fail and go to the temple to renew your loyalty paths and don't ask the leadership any questions, but only if you demonstrate obedience to authority until the end and read everything put out by the PhD's at FARMS/Interpreter and not by those imposters at the Maxwell Institute .....