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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

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

Post by Lemmie »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:27 pm
Lemmie wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:22 pm
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.
kishkumen wrote: 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.

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

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

Post by 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.
Star A
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:50 pm

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

Post by 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.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

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

Post by moksha »

I have a question wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:09 am
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.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

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

Post by Lemmie »

moksha wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 6:38 pm
I have a question wrote:
Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:09 am
It would be interesting to learn what happened to Kish?
Hopefully, his potatoes are still firmly planted.
That joke is getting old.
Last edited by Lemmie on Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
RockSlider
God
Posts: 6749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm

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

Post by RockSlider »

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.
Last edited by RockSlider on Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9669
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

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

Post by 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
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Lemmie wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:59 am

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

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

MG
Those biases reflect what type of knowledge is allowed at the table and whether or not that impacts the flavor of understanding one has.
Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind. I see what you are doing here, and it won't work anymore than it did for Bill. The only thing valid across the board is evidenced knowledge, not wishful thinking knowledge. We have exactly no real evidence for a Nephite or Lamanite reality. It is the stick in the craw of Mormonism. Without it, the knowledge Mormonism claims is vastly inferior. It is why apologetics gives such desperate arguments when they think there is actual evidence. None of it has ever panned out be validly accepted.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:55 pm
MG
Those biases reflect what type of knowledge is allowed at the table and whether or not that impacts the flavor of understanding one has.
Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind.
The evidence is also dependent/tied to what type/kind of evidence is allowed at the table and how that then impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

If a creator God isn’t allowed a seat at the table that has an impact/influence, for example.

Regards,
MG

Finn the human
Star A
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:50 pm

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

Post by Finn the human »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:22 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:55 pm


Knowledge based on evidence is always superior to any other kind.
The evidence is also dependent/tied to what type/kind of evidence is allowed at the table and how that then impacts the flavor of understanding one has.

If a creator God isn’t allowed a seat at the table that has an impact/influence, for example.

Regards,
MG
Whenever I’m leading a round table discussion with regard to evidence I always try to make sure all the major players are invited. But, I specifically exclude creator Gods. This is a bias that I will readily admit, but since I have acknowledged the bias it’s as though it doesn’t exist. Thus I am justified and I can get closer to the truth.
Mathematical!

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

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

Post by Gadianton »

Brilliant, Finn. Had he the capacity, you would have taught MG a lesson with this.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Finn the human wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:04 pm

Whenever I’m leading a round table discussion with regard to evidence I always try to make sure all the major players are invited. But, I specifically exclude creator Gods. This is a bias that I will readily admit, but since I have acknowledged the bias it’s as though it doesn’t exist. Thus I am justified and I can get closer to the truth.
What truth?

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:45 pm
Brilliant, Finn. Had he the capacity, you would have taught MG a lesson with this.
Maybe you could help me out?

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9777
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

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

Post by Gadianton »

I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:11 pm
I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.
But you are gold teaching for all the rest of us, so never quit responding....
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:11 pm
I've tried to explain basic things to you before MG, and I've failed.
I think I can understand how you might feel. There have been many times where I’ve tried to explain things, at great length on this board, to go away convinced I’m talking to a brick wall. Similar to how I may have felt, at times, when I was teaching school, albeit replacing little kids with big kids. :smile:

Biases impact outcomes. Having determined that there isn’t a creator God is a bias that will impact any roundtable discussion. Just as having come to a determination that one is open to belief in a creator God will steer one in the direction of looking for supporting views/evidence.

One can try and wiggle out of admitting to bias, but I think it’s a rather fruitless endeavor.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

MG
One can try and wiggle out of admitting to bias, but I think it’s a rather fruitless endeavor.
No one is doing this here. My bias is always with that which has evidence. Evidence changes what biases one can have rationally. If one has biases in face against evidences, then one gives up any credibility they may imagine they possess. Evidence is the only way to actual reality. It also demolishes wishful thinking. You know this, you just can't face up to its implications. We've seen this for years with you and your attempts to get us to accept something on testimonial heresay imagining it to be on the same par as actual evidence. It's not.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

DoubtingThomas
God
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:04 am

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

Post by DoubtingThomas »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:30 pm
a creator God
What did god create?

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:45 pm
mentalgymnast wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:30 pm
a creator God
What did god create?
You have been away from your scriptures for a period of time, huh?

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

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

Post by mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:43 pm
MG
One can try and wiggle out of admitting to bias, but I think it’s a rather fruitless endeavor.
No one is doing this here.
That answer, in and of itself, causes me to pause and question the veracity of your statement.

Regards,
MG

Post Reply