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.
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 »

In all honesty, I really do try to keep myself open to Gods and whatnot. Creator Gods, destroyer Gods, survival Gods, adventure Gods, demigods, the whole lot of them. One time I had a hypothesis that maybe Satan was a pretty good guy but he had been maligned and slandered by some of the other Gods. So I tried to keep my heart open to the influence of Satan and see what would happen. The cool thing is that if you are diligent enough and look for thoughts, impressions, the thinnest of associations, or whatever you will probably find it. I have this fantasy of going to one of the faithful subs/boards and dropping my Satan discovery on them. It’s very likely that their biases and preconceived notions would get in the way of being open to the truth.

Anyway, sorry OP for being a part of derailing your thread.
Mathematical!

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22484
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 »

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.
I say invite them anyway. If they are no-shows, then that is their loss. More ambrosia for everyone else.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3606
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

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

Post by Dr Exiled »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:08 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:43 pm


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
Of course. Everyone who doesn't believe in Mormon garbage or the latest apologetic denial of reality is obviously, hopelessly biased. Whatever keeps you believing, I guess.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21356
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

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

Post by Kishkumen »

Lemmie wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:52 pm
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.
Fair enough, Lemmie. You have stated your position passionately, forthrightly, and logically. When I comment on this board, I try to accommodate people as generously as I can, even those with whom I deeply disagree. I deeply disagree with John Gee, but I do think what he says about his perspective regarding others leaving the LDS Church with some deficit of knowledge is perfectly honest from his point of view and the point of view of other Latter-day Saints. They believe they know something important, and that departing from that thing is to forget.

In fact, that point of view is coming straight out of the Book of Mormon, which ties departing from the truth to the loss of knowledge.

I accept that this is a paradigm that is meaningless to you, and I don't want to argue about it further. All I am doing at this point is accounting for my own strategy of trying to think with another's cap on out of my own sense of fairness, so that others understand that there may be other ways of constructively working with what Gee has written.
kishkumen wrote: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.
Well, I guess not everyone treats every subject like math. Moreover, when I post here I am not posting primarily as an academic, although I do regularly bring my professional knowledge to bear on things. You will note that I chose to take on the persona of the Reverend, and many others call me Reverend or Rev. As the Reverend, I do not operate within a strictly academic paradigm, and the logic that you refer to, while a wonderfully useful tool, is not my sole tool and only standard. I endeavor, however imperfectly, to give others the benefit of the doubt to the extent I am able, and also to see things as they might be looking at them, whether I agree with them in the end or not.

I disagree with John Gee about many things, but I do recall what it was like to tie spiritual convictions and knowledge, and the loss of spiritual convictions to the loss of that knowledge. I can see how easy it would be within that paradigm to conclude that a person who left the LDS Church either did not know what the person needed to know or somehow forgot what was known.

It can be easy to forget the full range of meanings that the Mormon use of the words "know" and "knowledge" (and related words and concepts) have, and then irrelevantly chastise Mormons for using these terms incorrectly. Sure, Mormons can be converted into a place where they no longer think of their spiritual convictions as knowledge, and on the other side it is easy to scoff at those who use these terms as Mormons do, or just disregard them as incorrect, but for those on the inside know and knowledge (and understanding) can be legitimately used as Gee and others use them, especially when the target audience is an LDS one. It is accepted LDS usage, after all.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
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 »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:32 am

I disagree with John Gee about many things, but I do recall what it was like to tie spiritual convictions and knowledge, and the loss of spiritual convictions to the loss of that knowledge. I can see how easy it would be within that paradigm to conclude that a person who left the LDS Church either did not know what the person needed to know or somehow forgot what was known.
Hi Kishkumen, your honesty is refreshing. I enjoyed your post to Lemmie. One question. How and when did you determine that spiritual knowledge was not to be prioritized alongside with knowledge? And by knowledge are we to assume that you are referring to purely secular knowledge? I find it interesting that at one time in your life apparently the two ways of knowing dovetailed each other...and then they didn’t.

Why?

Regards,
MG

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
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:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:32 am
Lemmie wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:52 pm
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.
Well, I guess not everyone treats every subject like math.
I specifically referred to logic, objectivity, and statistical responsibility, by which I meant NOT using statistical relationships in illogical ways. It’s flattering you would call that treating a subject like math, because I do consider math to be a language of expression, but more pertinently, yes, I do attach more relevance to logical thought in discourse.
I disagree with John Gee about many things, but I do recall what it was like to tie spiritual convictions and knowledge, and the loss of spiritual convictions to the loss of that knowledge. I can see how easy it would be within that paradigm to conclude that a person who left the LDS Church either did not know what the person needed to know or somehow forgot what was known.

It can be easy to forget the full range of meanings that the Mormon use of the words "know" and "knowledge" (and related words and concepts) have, and then irrelevantly chastise Mormons for using these terms incorrectly. Sure, Mormons can be converted into a place where they no longer think of their spiritual convictions as knowledge, and on the other side it is easy to scoff at those who use these terms as Mormons do, or just disregard them as incorrect, but for those on the inside know and knowledge (and understanding) can be legitimately used as Gee and others use them, especially when the target audience is an LDS one. It is accepted LDS usage, after all.
The Mormons have different meanings for know and knowledge? It may be accepted LDS usage, but it doesn’t make it accurate or right, nor are people obligated to accept those definitions at face value or without comment in public articles just because they are considered “acceptable” within their group. (Personally, I disagree with you, here. I do not think Mormons in general think that their definition of “knowing” is different from the standard dictionary definition.)

This doesn’t address my point, though. If someone wants to approach their position from a purely spiritual approach, I can respect that, but noting one’s spiritual position does not mean, in my opinion, that it is therefore acceptable to write public papers in which statistics are maneuvered into supporting statements that are false, or in which illogical arguments are made that are not supported by facts, or in which meanings are attached to words that are patently inaccurate.
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:32 am

I accept that this is a paradigm that is meaningless to you, and I don't want to argue about it further. All I am doing at this point is accounting for my own strategy of trying to think with another's cap on out of my own sense of fairness...
Same with me. I don’t consider it an argument, so please don’t feel I am insisting on engagement, as I am not. I am just expressing my personal opinion about ideas and concepts, just like you.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21356
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

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

Post by Kishkumen »

Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:59 am
I specifically referred to logic, objectivity, and statistical responsibility, by which I meant NOT using statistical relationships in illogical ways. It’s flattering you would call that treating a subject like math, because I do consider math to be a language of expression, but more pertinently, yes, I do attach more relevance to logical thought in discourse.
All understood, yes. This is perfectly clear, and I did not use the phrase "treating a subject like math" in a derogatory way. On the other hand, it is not the only way, and it is not always the best mode for every situation. The latter is my opinion, and you may well disagree. In this case, if I say it is fair for Gee to engage in LDS discourse with fellow LDS people, I actually do think it is both fair and to be expected. I do not think it is fair to judge what he is doing according to standards he is not applying. Now, ultimately, we can say that he is wrong, but I still don't think that what he is doing in using LDS concepts of knowledge, truth, and affiliation is unfair from an insider's view.
The Mormons have different meanings for know and knowledge?
Is that an actual question or a rhetorical one?
It may be accepted LDS usage, but it doesn’t make it accurate or right, nor are people obligated to accept those definitions at face value or without comment in public articles just because they are considered “acceptable” within their group. (Personally, I disagree with you, here. I do not think Mormons in general think that their definition of “knowing” is different from the standard dictionary definition.)
Yes, well, when someone says they know the Church is true on the basis of a spiritual feeling, and that whole idea subsequently comes to be viewed by them as unbelievable and unacceptable after they leave the Church, it tells me there is some incongruity in the way these people are employing these concepts at different points in their journey. Whether they consciously acknowledge the difference between their views and the dictionary definition is a different thing. Their whole epistemology as believing Latter-day Saints has important, distinctly LDS differences from those of non-believers.
This doesn’t address my point, though. If someone wants to approach their position from a purely spiritual approach, I can respect that, but noting one’s spiritual position does not mean, in my opinion, that it is therefore acceptable to write public papers in which statistics are maneuvered into supporting statements that are false, or in which illogical arguments are made that are not supported by facts, or in which meanings are attached to words that are patently inaccurate.
I would agree that Gee is ethically challenged in his work as an apologist, and I would attribute it to the fact that he is probably both neuro-atypical, on the one hand, and a fanatic, on the other. But that does not mean that his general point about truth, knowledge, testimony, and affiliation is unintelligible and exceptionable within LDS discourse. For him I think it has always been the case that the Kingdom is first and God's truth comes before human facts. It is difficult to reach any other conclusion after observing him for a long period of time.
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:32 am
Same with me. I did not state that I find your paradigm meaningless when I said I was surprised you took a certain position. I apologize if you took that personally, it was not intended to be a slur on your overall position or beliefs. I would never consider your paradigm to be meaningless. The finality of that assumption is unnecessary. I am just expressing my personal opinion about ideas and concepts, just like you.
I did not take it personally. It just seemed worthwhile to remind you that I am not wearing an academic hat here, and that my involvement with Mormonism is not purely academic. I make no apologies for that, and I do not feel defensive about it. In fact, I have been pretty open about it for some time. But, if you are surprised that "a fellow academic" would not agree with your reading of Gee, I thought it would be helpful to remind you of some things about me that you seem to have forgotten.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
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:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:18 pm
... But, if you are surprised that "a fellow academic" would not agree with your reading of Gee, I thought it would be helpful to remind you of some things about me that you seem to have forgotten.
Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:
Lemmie wrote:
I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21356
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

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

Post by Kishkumen »

Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:34 pm
Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:
Lemmie wrote: I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.
:lol:

Oh my. Now we are opening up a whole new can of worms. Objective? I hope we hold such an aspiration and honestly try to live up to it. Do we succeed? Questionable. I want to see Ben Park in his new history of Nauvoo as admirably succeeding as much as one may be able, when I get around to reading it.

But no, I never claimed that being passionate and striving for objectivity are mutually exclusive places/processes to be in. What is under discussion, at least in my view, is about so much more than having passion versus striving for objectivity.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
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:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:52 pm
Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:34 pm
Just to clarify, ( i edited that part because I felt I was not clear) , when I said I was surprised, it was not about your disagreement of my reading of Gee at all, it was only, and very specifically, because it seemed you were arguing against this:
Lemmie” wrote:
I also do not think being passionate and also objective about something are mutually exclusive positions to take.
:lol:

Oh my. Now we are opening up a whole new can of worms. Objective? I hope we hold such an aspiration and honestly try to live up to it. Do we succeed? Questionable. I want to see Ben Park in his new history of Nauvoo as admirably succeeding as much as one may be able, when I get around to reading it.

But no, I never claimed that being passionate and striving for objectivity are mutually exclusive places/processes to be in. What is under discussion, at least in my view, is about so much more than having passion versus striving for objectivity.
Thank you for the clarification! I’m relieved to see it. :lol:

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
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 »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:56 am
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:32 am

I disagree with John Gee about many things, but I do recall what it was like to tie spiritual convictions and knowledge, and the loss of spiritual convictions to the loss of that knowledge. I can see how easy it would be within that paradigm to conclude that a person who left the LDS Church either did not know what the person needed to know or somehow forgot what was known.
Hi Kishkumen, your honesty is refreshing. I enjoyed your post to Lemmie. One question. How and when did you determine that spiritual knowledge was not to be prioritized alongside with knowledge? And by knowledge are we to assume that you are referring to purely secular knowledge? I find it interesting that at one time in your life apparently the two ways of knowing dovetailed each other...and then they didn’t.

Why?
So could we safely assume that secular...or so called factual knowledge...superseded spiritual knowledge? I find it interesting that you end your first sentence with the words “that knowledge”. What exactly are you referring to?

If this is considered a derail, I apologize. I am interested in your answer though. Another thread if appropriate? Or just a quicky answer without going off on a complete derail.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21356
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

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

Post by Kishkumen »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:39 pm
mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:56 am


Hi Kishkumen, your honesty is refreshing. I enjoyed your post to Lemmie. One question. How and when did you determine that spiritual knowledge was not to be prioritized alongside with knowledge? And by knowledge are we to assume that you are referring to purely secular knowledge? I find it interesting that at one time in your life apparently the two ways of knowing dovetailed each other...and then they didn’t.

Why?
So could we safely assume that secular...or so called factual knowledge...superseded spiritual knowledge? I find it interesting that you end your first sentence with the words “that knowledge”. What exactly are you referring to?

If this is considered a derail, I apologize. I am interested in your answer though. Another thread if appropriate? Or just a quicky answer without going off on a complete derail.

Regards,
MG
Hello, MG. I believe that there are different kinds of knowledge and knowing, yes. I do not reject spiritual experiences as a kind of knowledge. That said, I am not really certain of how to contextualize or reconcile different kinds of knowledge. I also think it can be dangerous to extrapolate in certain ways based on spiritual knowledge. I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts, for example. If I find my spiritual life is enriched by the Book of Mormon, that does not mean it is an ancient text. The Bible does not prove the resurrection of Jesus. I do not feel obligated to obey President Nelson because I once prayed about the Book of Mormon and got an affirmative answer. Just because a Church tells me to follow a certain line of reasoning following a spiritual experience does not mean the line of reasoning is sound.

I hope that helps. Maybe another thread will help me complete the process of destroying any credibility I imagined having to everyone’s satisfaction, including my own.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9945
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 think if we were going to make a distinction between spiritual "knowledge" and "factual" knowledge, then we'd need to steer clear of the apologist shell game that simply uses notions of spirituality to defend against uncomfortable facts, or to just make up facts whole cloth. I think the key to any kind of authentic spiritual knowledge, to the extent that such a thing could actually be, is that spiritual knowledge must not be propositional. Now, that might wipe out nearly everything Mormons believe about spirituality because for Mormons, propositions such as the existence of God or Satan or the truth of the Book of Mormon, often as literal history, actually aren't suppositions of any different kind than statements about rain and snow. There really is no distinction between "spiritual knowledge" and "factual knowledge" if spiritual knowledge is merely a list of empirical claims except that they benefit some special narrative or power structure, while having no credible evidence. And I must point out, If the evidence were credible, then apologists wouldn't jump out of their seat to suppose some knew kind of knowledge such as "spiritual knowledge" that is exactly like ordinary knowledge except the believer gets to be right about whatever he wants by some invented criteria. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were really believed that Mormon propositions are credible.

The holy ghost can "testify" to the truth of all things, right? And so an angel could come down from heaven and explain how light works while the Holy Ghost gives you a good feeling, and bam, you now know how light works in exactly the same way as you know Nephi built a ship. So what's the difference between "factual" and "spiritual" knowledge?

rev: " I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts,"

Yes, that silliness must be flushed before any progress could be made to legitimize "spirituality" at all.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
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:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:56 pm
I think if we were going to make a distinction between spiritual "knowledge" and "factual" knowledge, then we'd need to steer clear of the apologist shell game that simply uses notions of spirituality to defend against uncomfortable facts, or to just make up facts whole cloth. I think the key to any kind of authentic spiritual knowledge, to the extent that such a thing could actually be, is that spiritual knowledge must not be propositional. Now, that might wipe out nearly everything Mormons believe about spirituality because for Mormons, propositions such as the existence of God or Satan or the truth of the Book of Mormon, often as literal history, actually aren't suppositions of any different kind than statements about rain and snow. There really is no distinction between "spiritual knowledge" and "factual knowledge" if spiritual knowledge is merely a list of empirical claims except that they benefit some special narrative or power structure, while having no credible evidence. And I must point out, If the evidence were credible, then apologists wouldn't jump out of their seat to suppose some knew kind of knowledge such as "spiritual knowledge" that is exactly like ordinary knowledge except the believer gets to be right about whatever he wants by some invented criteria. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were really believed that Mormon propositions are credible.

The holy ghost can "testify" to the truth of all things, right? And so an angel could come down from heaven and explain how light works while the Holy Ghost gives you a good feeling, and bam, you now know how light works in exactly the same way as you know Nephi built a ship. So what's the difference between "factual" and "spiritual" knowledge?

rev: " I do not believe that spiritual feelings or knowledge regarding scriptures establishes historical facts,"

Yes, that silliness must be flushed before any progress could be made to legitimize "spirituality" at all.
Spiritual knowledge cannot be handed to you on a silver platter.
Alma 32

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.
38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.
39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.
The personal pronoun referencing first person you is found 25 times, to my count, in a short span of words. It’s not infrequently that critics are observed saying, in one form or another, “Show me a sign or I will not believe.”

Good luck taking that approach. You have to receive your own spiritual witness. And without the propositional position of seeking and/or learning about a personal God how in the world would you ever expect to progress, or even begin, to obtain this spiritual knowledge/growth that Alma describes?

Regards,
MG

I have a question
God
Posts: 9749
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 »

I remember when this was a thread about John Gee's book...

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9945
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 »

MG "The personal pronoun referencing first person you is found 25 times, to my count, in a short span of words. It’s not infrequently that critics are observed saying, in one form or another, “Show me a sign or I will not believe.”

lol. Your reading comprehension is as bad as always if you thought my post had anything to do with sign-seeking.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

kairos
God
Posts: 1915
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm

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

Post by kairos »

Bishop: Priest Jones you say that you are masturbating 8 times a day and you feel distant to the church and barely have a testimony?

Priest Jones: well i am down from 10 times a day-it's just hard to keep up and i have little time for reading the Book of Mormon or praying so yeah my testimony is in the dumpster-what can i do?

Bisbop: Well i applaud your effort to get the number to 8- remember Joseph Smith was not a masturbater at all once he found he could bang 14 year olds and just about any other female he promised celestial glory to- have you tried that?

Priest: No but i would like a couple of names of the girls you think might be plowable (Samson used that word).

Bishop: Sure i have a few names- let's you try to keep the sex down a little till you go on your mission-by the way you can balance fornication and masturbation can't you?

Priest: i feel my testimony is getting stronger because of your help Bishop!

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
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:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:10 am
MG "The personal pronoun referencing first person you is found 25 times, to my count, in a short span of words. It’s not infrequently that critics are observed saying, in one form or another, “Show me a sign or I will not believe.”

lol. Your reading comprehension is as bad as always if you thought my post had anything to do with sign-seeking.
Mine did. Because that’s what I see a number of people here doing. You included. Alma 32 has application to your previous post.

Regards,
MG

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
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:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:02 pm
Maybe another thread will help me complete the process of destroying any credibility I imagined having to everyone’s satisfaction, including my own.
Dear Reverend, you are far too hard on yourself! I know we tussle regularly and disagree on many things, but your credibility is certainly not at risk. I always find your posts extremely valuable, and yes, I will admit, occasionally irritating, but how boring would it be otherwise? :lol: Your vast knowledge and interesting perspective are always appreciated. Thank you for participating here.

I have a question
God
Posts: 9749
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 »

I have a question wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:37 am
"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.
This was where the thread was at before it was spiked.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21356
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

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

Post by Kishkumen »

Lemmie wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:48 pm
Dear Reverend, you are far too hard on yourself! I know we tussle regularly and disagree on many things, but your credibility is certainly not at risk. I always find your posts extremely valuable, and yes, I will admit, occasionally irritating, but how boring would it be otherwise? :lol: Your vast knowledge and interesting perspective are always appreciated. Thank you for participating here.
Thank you, Lemmie. It is good to have challenges from colleagues, on the one hand, and a kind reminder that one is part of a family of sorts here at Cassius U., on the other. I appreciate it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Post Reply