Water Dog wrote:Correlation is not causation, etc. Ponzi schemes for instance. There is a huge difference between being the villain and the victim in such schemes. Are Mormons more likely to be victimized by such schemes? Maybe. That might be true. But this could be a side-effect of good character traits. Giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst, etc. Are Mormons more likely to be the fraudsters? Nah, I don't think so. A lot of multi-level marketing stuff does come out of Utah. And we joke about it. But I don't think this has anything to do with Joseph Smith, at least not in a direct enough way that he could be blamed for it. Utah simply has a lot of people with sales experience thanks to missionary service. Which comes with both the good and the bad. Some of the best salesmanship comes out of Utah too, which gets leveraged by some of the biggest and most successful organizations in the world in completely honest ways.
I would say that the best place to be a con man is where you know you will have a lot of easy marks. Yes, correlation is not causation. Obviously. And, I don't think I ever promised to demonstrate causation. But, word to the wise is this: avoid sketchy situations (whether that means leaving the LDS Church or staying away from the high priest selling shares in a gold mine is up to the individual). Be wise enough to know the problem, and, if you think that one of these things (participation in Mormonism) may well lead to the other (being in a con-rich environment), you're probably not far off.
Mormonism has its good points and bad points. While these characteristics are not divorced from the range of human behaviors, they do have a particular Mormon cast to them. Otherwise, there would be no distinct culture. And, yes, I do believe that the founding story of Mormonism bears all the marks of a hoax or confidence scheme, and that those who are attracted to it may be more liable to either fall for or perpetrate such schemes. I admit that I can't prove it. I am not saying that *all* Mormons are more gullible, or more likely to commit cons. What I am suggesting is that, speaking of the group as a whole, one may be more likely to find cons and victims of cons in Mormonism than in other groups.
That's my opinion, which springs from long observation of friends, family, acquaintances, and, well, national news stories.
Water Dog wrote:Without getting into the weeds of this topic, yeah, I acknowledge the point and there is definitely something there. But, how much of that is LDS-specific vs. conservative/christian world at large? Or even just humanity at large? I see some pretty unhealthy attitudes about sex coming from everywhere. Like feminists who say crazy things like intercourse = rape. Or this latest "trans" fad that seems to, more often than not, end up with people being even more depressed than they started out. Not that there aren't some legitimate issues here, but geez, the stuff that's going on flies in the face of common sense. A lot of unhealthy attitudes being pushed. Or the overt sexism that is common with male-targeted standup comedy. Bill Burr is a funny guy, but let's get real, treat your lady like that and let me know how that works out for you in real life. It's funny, but I sure hope nobody is taking it literally. Clearly the Clinton's aren't a role model for a good marriage. Or Huma/Weiner. What's the deal with all these liberal career women and their sex-crazed men? I haven't connected all the dots, but it feels like a pattern.
Oh, yes. I think the mistake you are making in interpreting me, if you are making a mistake, is to see me as suggesting that there is some place where we will find a reliably better situation in every conceivable way. Obviously that is not true. I would say that anyone who drinks the Kool Aid of "my group is the best group and one that always leads to better outcomes" is clearly delusional, even if adorably so. What I am saying is that Mormonism has its own brand of sexual crazy, which will lead, in our environment, to a certain kind of complaint about it. What we have seen with Dehlin is so stereotypically Mormon. Being the careless doofus that he tends to be, he walked right into it.
If you think about it, we have had this conversation a couple of time in different forms. The problem with Mormon views of sexuality is that they make more and less out of both genders. Both genders are both idealized in unrealistic ways and then demonized in equal proportion. Lots of ex-Mos are still subconsciously looking for the ideal priesthood holder, and they try to fill that hole with John Dehlin. Everything John accuses the Church of being, he must avoid like the plague. Of course, just about everyone who was expecting these wonderful things was operating under a delusionally optimistic paradigm (the implicit priesthood paradigm), so they *will* be disappointed, and, when they are, they will chew the guy up for breakfast. So woe be unto the fool who would replace the Mormon priesthood unconsciously and then make jokes about polygamy with a chick he is making out with. He is the demon. He is a dangerous person.
Water Dog wrote:I agree those sort of interviews were John's best Mormon Stories work by far. I loved them. Feels like a long time ago. And you'll notice folks like Bushman and Givens won't have anything to do with him now.
Of course they won't. They are wonderful guys, and they are also circumspect organizational men.
Water Dog wrote:Taking this ball and running a bit further, another pattern John seems to fit is the stereotype of shrinks being crazy, an impolite way of saying that people go into fields like psychology in order to figure themselves out. He fits the mold to a T. And I point that out because this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to Mormonism but all cultures. Just human. Another pattern is a sense of meaning or fighting for a cause. Purpose of life, perhaps. Everybody wants to leave their mark on humanity. Mormonism plays on this, small "elite" group of people with exclusive access to the truth, called by god, special earthly missions, path to godhood, etc., but it's not exclusive to Mormonism either. We see quite a lot of that sort of thing in the current political environment. It's not a coincidence for example that demonstrations disproportionately occur on college campuses. This is perhaps the most common theme in fiction is it not? How many movies are based around stories like this, man vs world? Virtually all of them? On and on...
I agree with most of this. I do think there is an extra measure of messiah-complex in Mormonism, but it is not a rare phenomenon in general.
Water Dog wrote:And my point here isn't to bash John but say something about the tendency of those who disaffect from the church to be overly negative about it. This whole thread is "john dehlin sucks" and "it's the church's fault." Rosebud has problems, which are John Dehlin's fault, but he gets a pass, because it's really all the church's fault, or something. How about we all have problems and they are all basically our own fault? The church is evil and not using it's resources to help people. Well what the heck are any of us doing? What is Dehlin doing? Oh, he's working a job that he gets paid for? Yeah that's not service, that's your job, dude. I whine on the internet about how the church sucks. Yeah, that's super helpful. The starving children thank you. LOL.
And, what do we expect the disaffected to be? Easy on the LDS Church? I don't know. Everyone is going to make peace with their experience in their own way. Rosebud is going to make peace with it by fighting John Dehlin, evidently. I make peace with it in my own confusing and contradictory way. You make peace with it by... expressing frustration with overly negative ex-Mos? I don't know.
Yes, we all have problems, and, ultimately, we are the ones who are left to deal with them. Hopefully we don't make our problems other people's problems. We will, but maybe we should avoid that as much as possible. And, if we feel we have been wronged, maybe revenge is not the best response to the situation.
Oh, and very few people spend all of their time feeding the starving children, which, by the way, can be much more difficult than you might think (feeding the starving children, that is).