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

[_DoubtingThomas]

a creator God

What did god create?

[_mentalgymnast]

a creator God

What did god create?

You have been away from your scriptures for a period of time, huh?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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

[_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.

[_moksha]

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.

[_Dr Exiled]

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.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

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]

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.

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.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

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.