Latest Interpreter article: "An Analysis of the Financial Incentives in Attacking the Restoration"

[Tom]

There is an important comparison between nonprofit organizations that are critical of the Church, and nonprofit organizations established to defend the Church. Many view those defending the Church as heroic, giving their time, talents, and knowledge to provide solid fact-based answers to the hundreds of accusations leveled by critics. But when responding to this comparison of salaries, some critics have ridiculed individuals who volunteer for these organizations, resorting to name-calling and implying that working without monetary compensation was somehow laughable. Again, an information outlet with significant financial gains for its leaders is not necessarily unreliable because of such incentives, nor is information created by unpaid volunteers necessarily more trustworthy. Financial incentives are nevertheless a factor that may be considered in understanding the behavior, and especially the business model and marketing methods, of the source. Further, when information is known to be hostile and unreliable, the financial incentives may strengthen or confirm suspicions of questionable behavior.

This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT.

Indeed. This may be a watershed moment.

[Bond]

Not mentioned: All of the content creation is legal and apparently has a ready and growing audience of members who are questioning all sorts of Church doctrine and policy. But it's just the Devil I suppose. Nothing the church does is bad or ever has been bad or harmful to any of its' members.

One of the sources is a YouTube compilation of "Exmos behaving badly" that at the beginning has an endorsement of the Midnight Mormons from Jacob Hansen. Irony.

[Gadianton]

Did an Interpreter editor read the article prior to publication?

I'll go ahead and field this one. No.

[drumdude]

Did an Interpreter editor read the article prior to publication?

I'll go ahead and field this one. No.

The peer review department (Dan) is on vacation.

[Marcus]

Just started reading the article, and got to this:

Assuming those who contribute money to these critics hold negative feelings toward the Church, increasing the overall number of people who feel contempt against the Church and capturing that audience as listeners has the potential of increasing their total donations. Again, this does not refute the validity of their arguments, but it raises reasonable questions about their behavior and reliability.

Interesting logic. Let's see if the author really means it. Here is the same argument applied the other way.

Assuming those who contribute money to [the LDS church] hold negative feelings toward the [critics of the LDS]Church, increasing the overall number of people who feel contempt against the [critics of the LDS] Church and capturing that audience as listeners has the potential of increasing [the LDS church's] total donations. Again, this does not refute the validity of the [LDS church] arguments, but it raises reasonable questions about [LDS church leaders'] behavior and reliability.

I predict we won't see the author applying his logic evenly. It sounds like mentalgymnast's argument that Jenkins was biased, therefore Jenkin's arguments in his debate with Hamblin can be dismissed.

When it was pointed out that by using mentalgymnast's own logic everyone is biased, he doubled down and said yes, but Jenkins' bias means he is debating dishonestly, while Hamblin's bias doesn't affect his arguments. He knows this because Jenkins was disagreeing with Hamblin's LDS positions. Which he knows are right.

The logic in this article uses better grammar, but it's no different than mentalgymnast's flawed argument.

[Marcus]

This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT.

Indeed. This may be a watershed moment.

Does he realize what he just said about LDS leaders who are financially compensated, and how they run the LDS church?

...an information outlet with significant financial gains for its leaders is not necessarily unreliable because of such incentives, nor is information created by unpaid volunteers necessarily more trustworthy. Financial incentives are nevertheless a factor that may be considered in understanding the behavior,and especially the business model and marketing methods, of the source. Further, when information is known to be hostile and unreliable, the financial incentives may strengthen or confirm suspicions of questionable behavior.

[Fence Sitter]

In the time it takes to read the article the LDS church will make more money off their widow's mite hoard than all the critical sites will in donations for a year.

[malkie]

I'll go ahead and field this one. No.

The peer review department (Dan) is on vacation.

and no other person was available to peer at the article?

[drumdude]

The peer review department (Dan) is on vacation.

and no other person was available to peer at the article?

According to Dan they have a very strict and thorough review process. I think the results speak for themselves.

[consiglieri]

Spoiler alert: Brother Rhodes identifies Mormon Stories and Mormon Discussion(s), Inc. as "the primary critics of the Church."

This is certainly cheering news for a Friday afternoon.